Marx-Engels |  Lenin  | Stalin |  Home Page

  Molotov Letter to The Central Committee of CPSU ; On the personality cult and the Programme of CPSU

PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND PEACEFUL ECONOMIC COMPETITION OF STATES WITH OPPOSITE SOCIAL ORDERS AND WAR

 I shall begin my consideration of this extremely important and complex question directly from the relevant provision of the Program of the CPSU. It says: 

"Peaceful coexistence implies: the rejection of war as a means of resolving disputes between states, their resolution through negotiations; equality, mutual understanding and trust between states; consideration of each other's interests; non-interference in internal affairs, recognition of the right of each people to independently resolve all issues of their country strict observance of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries development of economic and cultural cooperation on the basis of complete equality and mutual benefit “Peaceful coexistence” is the basis of peaceful competition between socialism and capitalism on a world scale and is a specific form of class struggle between them... Peaceful coexistence of socialist and capitalist states - an objective necessity for the development of human society ...Peaceful competition or a catastrophic war - this is the only way history has posed the question" (Programma KPSS. Gospolitizdat. 1961, pp. 60-61). 

Analyzing this program provision, we must bear in mind the guiding explanation of Khrushchev, who "taught" in his speech at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU: 

"Peace and peaceful coexistence are not exactly the same thing. Peaceful coexistence is not just the absence of war, not a temporary unstable truce between wars, it is the existence of two opposite systems based on the mutual rejection of the use of war as a means of resolving disputed interstate issues." 

And, forestalling the quite logical question of how long this peaceful coexistence of capitalist and socialist states is conceivable, Khrushchev added: 

"In modern conditions, the prospect of achieving peaceful coexistence has opened up for the entire period during which the social and political problems that now divide the world must find their solution ..." 

It is clear from what has been said that the policy of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems presupposes, as its support base, the foundation of the very possibility of its implementation, the renunciation of war, a mutual agreement between states on the renunciation of war as a means of resolving disputed interstate issues. The program of the CPSU assures us that such an agreement is quite possible and admissible, that it is an objective necessity, because the governments of all states are aware of the fact that the problem of peaceful coexistence is put before them only in this way - either peaceful coexistence or a catastrophic thermonuclear war.

 It goes without saying that, speaking of the policy of peaceful coexistence between socialist and capitalist states, the Program of the CPSU consistently follows its own course and extends this policy not only to relations between states with opposite social systems, but also to relations between capitalist states, solemnly declaring that

"The CPSU and the entire Soviet people will continue to oppose ... wars between capitalist states..." (p. 62).

 After these preliminary remarks, let me pass on to a direct consideration of the question of so-called peaceful coexistence, peaceful competition between socialist and capitalist states.

 And I don't think I'm making a big mistake if I break this very big, wide-ranging, very complex issue into a few separate parts.

 IS WARS INEVITABLE WHILE IMPERIALISM EXISTS?

 V. I. Lenin in his works repeatedly addressed this, the most exciting issue of the 20th century. And this is the answer he gave:

 "Wars are rooted in the very essence of capitalism; they will stop only when the capitalist system ceases to exist" (Militant Militarism, 1918).

 "Under capitalism, especially in its imperialist stage, wars are inevitable" (Pacifism and the slogan of peace).

 "War is not an accident ... but an inevitable stage of capitalism" (The Position and Tasks of the Socialist International).

 "Intensification of militarism, intensification and acceleration of preparations for new imperialist wars, an increase in the number of wars throughout the world ..." (Theses on the international situation. 1920).

 "War ... is a continuation of the policy of peacetime" (From a letter from I. Armand). 

Based on a strictly scientific, economic analysis of imperialism as the highest and last stage of capitalism, V. I. Lenin clearly showed and proved that "imperialist wars are inevitable on the basis of private property" (vol. 50, p. 398).

 And it was from this analysis of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism that V. I. Lenin drew his brilliant conclusion about the possibility of the victory of socialism, first in one, separately taken country, as the first stage of the world socialist revolution.

 VI Lenin spoke about the fatal inevitability of wars under imperialism.

 The program of the CPSU asserts that "even before the complete victory of socialism on earth, if capitalism is preserved in part of the world..." (p. 58), war can be prevented.

 Theorists and supporters of the Program of the CPSU declare that V. I. Lenin, speaking of the inevitability of wars under imperialism, had in mind wars only between imperialist states.

 Invalid statement. Speaking at the Third Congress of the Comintern with a report on the tactics of the RCP (b), V. I. Lenin pointed out:

 “Now a certain balance of power has set in, a balance between bourgeois society, the international bourgeoisie as a whole, on the one hand, and Soviet Russia, on the other ... Of course, it must be emphasized that we are talking only about relative equilibrium, about a very unstable equilibrium ... Until there is a common end result, the state of terrible war will continue ... "

 With even greater certainty, Lenin spoke of this in his letter to the Eighth Congress of the RCP(b) in 1919:

 “We live not only in a state, but also in a system of states, and the existence of the Soviet Republic alongside the imperialist states for a long time is unthinkable. In the end, either one or the other will win. Until that end comes, a series of clashes between Soviets and  bourgeois states is inevitable."

 Of course, V. I. Lenin in 1918 - 1924 (and later I.V. Stalin) did everything in their power in their foreign policy in order to delay as long as possible, to maintain this state of "unstable balance", a state of unstable peaceful respite.

 Lenin's general line of foreign policy proceeded from a sober, objectively accurate analysis of the correlation of class forces in the world.

 “Until an international socialist revolution engulfing several countries breaks out,” said V.I. Lenin, “so strong that it could defeat international imperialism, until then the direct duty of the communists who have won in one (especially backward) country is not to accept battle with the giants of imperialism, to try to evade combat, to wait until the clash between the imperialists among themselves will further weaken them, bring the revolution in other countries even closer" (vol. 27, p. 294). 

"The foreign policy of the Soviet government must not be changed in any way. Our military training has not yet been completed, and therefore the general slogan remains as before: maneuver, retreat, wait, continuing this training with all our might" (vol. 27, p. 325) . 

Indeed, V. I. Lenin spoke, and this statement of his serves as the main trump card in the hands of supporters. Programs of the CPSU, their main argument in defense of the idea of ​​peaceful coexistence, which 

“we have found ourselves in such a position that, without having gained an international victory, the only and lasting victory for us, we have won for ourselves the conditions under which we can exist side by side with the capitalist powers, which are now forced to enter into trade relations with us ...” (vol. 31, p. 384).

True, at the same time, supporters of the CPSU Program forget to finish this quote, the end of which looks like this:

 “Now we have to talk not only about one respite, but about serious chances for new construction for a longer time” (Sub. - GM).

 In addition, theorists, and supporters of the Program of the CPSU could leaf through the same thirty-one volumes of V. I. Lenin's works and read Lenin's own remark on the quoted words on page 426:

 “I said ... that we have now passed from war to peace. But we have not forgotten that war will return again. As long as capitalism and socialism remain, they cannot live peacefully: either one or the other will win in the end; either according to the Soviet authorities will sing memorial services, or - for world capitalism. This is a delay in the war ”(vol. 31, p. 426) (emphasized by me. - GM).

 V. I. Lenin repeatedly pointed out:

 "We have finished one period of wars, we must prepare for the second; but when it comes, we do not know, and we need to make sure that when it comes, we could be on top" (vol. 31, p. 470) .

 "...Now our international position has given us a much longer and more lasting respite than the one we had at the beginning of the revolution. But we must remember that this is nothing more than a respite" (vol. 30, p. 453).

 "Although an extremely unstable, extremely fragile, but still such an equilibrium has turned out that a socialist republic can exist - of course for a short time - in a capitalist environment" (vol. 32, p. 429).

 The great leader of the proletariat never had any illusions about the fact that the so-called peaceful existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with the capitalist powers can continue indefinitely, or, as Khrushchev says, until the moment when "history itself" decides the dispute between socialism and capitalism.

 V. I. Lenin, being a great Marxist and a most sober politician, could not even allow the thought of the possibility of some long (in the historical sense) period of peaceful coexistence of states with opposite social systems.

 Why? Because he, and precisely because he was a sober Marxist politician, could not even allow the thought of the possibility of reconciling the irreconcilable.

 The Program of the CPSU says:

 "The main contradiction of the modern world is the contradiction between socialism and capitalism."

 At the February Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1964, M. A. Suslov quite convincingly argued that

 "The struggle of world socialism and world imperialism is the main content of our era, the core of the class struggle on a world scale. ... The central point of world politics, of all social development, is the struggle of the world socialist system against imperialism." (And, of course, vice versa, that is, world imperialism against socialism. - GM).

 Consequently, we recognize that there are certain class contradictions between socialism and imperialism at the present stage of the development of human society. And we not only recognize, but emphasize in every possible way that these class contradictions are the central point of world politics, the core of the class struggle of socialism against imperialism. This is a Marxist-Leninist position.

 But the question arises whether the class contradictions between socialism and imperialism irreconcilable are.

 For a Marxist-Leninist, the answer to this question can only be positive - yes, the contradictions, the class contradictions between the socialist system and the capitalist system, cannot be anything other than irreconcilable contradictions. If this is so, and from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism, I repeat this once more, then this is so, and it cannot be otherwise, do we thereby recognize that the contradictions between the socialist states and the capitalist states, between the governments of these states - are also class and antagonistic contradictions?

 We have to put this naive question, from the point of view of Marxist-Leninist ideology, because following the absolutely correct statement that "the main contradiction of the modern world is the contradiction between socialism and imperialism", that "the struggle of world socialism against imperialism is the pivot class struggle on a world scale,” the CPSU program and its supporters solemnly proclaim the possibility of peaceful coexistence of states with opposite social systems, the possibility of mutual agreement between the governments of these states on the renunciation of wars, the possibility of taking into account each other’s interests, etc. etc.

The proclamation by the Program of the CPSU of the possibility of peaceful coexistence for an indefinitely long period of states with different social systems, the proclamation of this peaceful coexistence as an objective necessity, in essence, means nothing more than a denial of the irreconcilability of the class contradictions between socialism and capitalism.

In my opinion, the proclamation of the policy of peaceful coexistence, in the form in which it is taught by the Program of the CPSU and its defenders, ultimately leads to the rejection or at least to the obscurity of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of classes and class struggle, to the policy of reconciliation of the class struggle. at the present stage of the development of human society, to "the oblivion of socialism for the sake of anti-militarism" (see V. I. Lenin, soch., vol. 13, p. 76).

 By declaring the policy of peaceful coexistence "not a temporary truce between wars" but "the existence of two opposite social systems based on the renunciation of war," the Program of the CPSU reduces this opposition to some kind of ephemeral concept, emasculates the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary content from it.

 Announcing the possibility of mutual understanding and trust, the possibility of the imperialist states taking into account the interests of the socialist states, and vice versa, we propagate the idea of ​​a shallow contradiction between socialism and capitalism with even greater force.

 Khrushchev stated:

 "We are for peaceful coexistence between states with different socio-political systems, but we are against peaceful coexistence between hostile classes. We are for class struggle. There can be no peace between those who exploit and those who are exploited" (Speech at a reception in honor of participants of the World Youth Forum, 19/1X-1965).

 Beautifully said, but this statement does not fit in with Marxism-Leninism.

 It is impossible to be, if one remains on the positions of Marxism-Leninism, at the same time against peaceful coexistence between hostile classes and for such between hostile states.

 It is unthinkable to assert, without abandoning the Marxist-Leninist position, that there can be no peace between the exploiters and the exploited, while at the same time declaring the possibility of peace between the exploiting states and the socialist states.

Such assertions are possible only when we cross out the entire teaching of Marx-Lenin on classes and the class struggle in general, when we cross out Marx-Lenin's teaching on the class nature of the state in particular.

 V. I. Lenin taught us that

 "It is impossible to blame individuals for starting the war - it was created by capital. Capitalism has reached a dead end. This dead end is nothing but imperialism" (vol. 28, pp. 62-63).

 "If militarism is a child of capitalism, then wars cannot be destroyed by the intrigues of rulers and diplomats, and the task of socialists is not to awaken illusions on this score, but, on the contrary, to constantly expose the hypocrisy and impotence of diplomatic "peaceful" steps" (Militant Militarism).

 "If imperialism were the fault or crime of individuals, then socialism could remain socialism. Imperialism is the last step in the development of capitalism" (Speech at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets).

 "War is not engendered by the evil will of predatory imperialists... War is engendered by the entire development of world capital, by its billions of threads and connections" (The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution).

 Lenin taught this. And the Program of the CPSU teaches us that war can be prevented by concluding an agreement with the governments of the imperialist states.

 It teaches us that "the policy of peaceful coexistence meets the vital interests of all mankind, with the exception of the bigwigs of the big monopolies and the military" (p. 61. Emphasized by me. - GM).

 Khrushchev taught that

 "The peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems can only be preserved and ensured by the selfless struggle of all peoples against the aggressive aspirations of the imperialists" (Stenotchet of the 22nd Congress of the CPSU).

 “No one demands from the ruling circles of the USA that they fall in love with socialism, just as they cannot demand that we fall in love with capitalism. The main thing is that they refuse to resolve controversial issues by means of war” (ibid.).

 Many party and state documents interpret this question in a completely similar way - 

"We believe that the working class, the working people of all countries can force the imperialist governments to agree to disarmament, to end the war" (Open Letter to the Central Committee of the CPSU).

 "To fight for peace today means to keep a vigilant eye on the intrigues and machinations of warmongers, to raise sacred anger against those who are heading for war" (Statement of the Soviet Government dated 14/UP-63).

In a report at the February Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1964, Suslov said the same thing:

 "We are convinced that the revolutionary struggle of the workers, the general democratic upsurge, the growing might of socialism, the decisive actions of all peace-loving peoples can and must force the imperialists, against their will, to reckon with the demand for disarmament."

 It is easy to see that between the positions of V. I. Lenin and the positions of the theoreticians and defenders of the CPSU Program there is a huge distance.

 For V. I. Lenin, war is an inevitable companion of imperialism as the last stage of capitalism, one of its main defining features. For V. I. Lenin, it is indisputable that wars are “inevitable on the basis of private property” and that therefore they cannot be abolished or prevented by an agreement between governments, cannot be abolished by “struggle against warmongers,” “big monopolies,” etc. representatives of the class of private owners.

 For the theoreticians and compilers of the CPSU Program, war is just politics, just a product of the evil will of the "big monopolies", the "military", "a narrow handful of monopolists," and so on.

 And there is nothing surprising in the fact that, following the logic of its compilers and theoreticians, the Program of the CPSU replaces the struggle against the imperialist class as a whole, the struggle for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, as an objective source of wars, by the struggle against individuals or groups of "tycoons".

 At the XXII Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchev said: 

“When, under the pressure of the masses, supporters of a more or less moderate policy gain the upper hand, international tension is relaxed, the clouds of war part somewhat. When the pressure of the masses weakens and those groupings of the bourgeoisie who enrich themselves in the arms race and see in the war an opportunity for additional profit win, - international tension is escalating." 

He was echoed by such a major theoretician of the new course as O. V. Kuusinen: 

“We are far from considering the entire modern bourgeoisie as something whole and homogeneous. A process of differentiation is also going on in its ranks. It does not and cannot have a single line, especially in such a decisive issue as the question of war and peace. Hence - two tendencies in the foreign policy of the imperialist states... One is militantly aggressive... The other is moderately sober... In practice, bourgeois governments most often compromise between the demands of the two extreme flanks of the bourgeois camp as a course to maintain international tension, if only the pressure from the masses of the people is not strong enough to force the ruling circles to agree to detente" (Stand report of the XXII Congress, vol. 1, pp. 386 - 387).

It turns out great according to the CPSU Program and the compilers! Well, how can we not remember again V. I. Lenin, who wrote: 

“Here is an example of philistine credulity and forgetfulness of the class struggle. The government appears to be something like a supra-class or supra-partisan government, only it is ‘pressed’ too hard from the right, it needs to be pressed harder from the left” (vol. 25, p. 233). 

Indeed, according to the Program of the CPSU, it turns out that the governments of the imperialist states are some kind of supra-class or extra-class bodies, independent of "big monopolies", "military", "a narrow handful of monopolists"; organs expressing the interests and pursuing the policy NOT of these "bigwigs", but expressing the interests and pursuing a policy of "compromises", a policy capable of taking into account the class interests of the socialist states.

 The struggle against the most reactionary and rabid representatives of the bourgeois class or its accomplices is necessary because both for the cause of the working class and for the cause of peace, as V.I. Lenin said, the difference "between the Lloyd Georges and the Hendersons, between the Hendersons and the Churchills" is not indifferent. 

But one cannot be a Marxist and reduce the class struggle to a struggle against individual representatives of a hostile class. One cannot be a Marxist by reducing the struggle to prevent war to a struggle against individual members of the imperialist class. One cannot be a Marxist by reducing the struggle against war to a struggle against individual "big monopolies". One cannot be a Marxist and fight against imperialism without touching the economic foundations of imperialism. 

Let's remember Lenin, who wrote - 

“The questions of whether a reformist change in the foundations of imperialism is possible, whether to go forward, towards a further sharpening and deepening of the contradictions generated by it, or backward, towards blunting them, are the fundamental questions of criticism of imperialism” (Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism).

It turns out, as Lenin said, that 

"... we are tearing the policy of imperialism from its economy... It turns out that monopolies in the economy are compatible with a non-monopoly, non-violent, non-grabbing mode of action in politics. It turns out that the territorial division of the earth, completed just in the era of finance capital and forming the basis of the originality of the present forms of competition between the major capitalist states, are compatible with non-imperialist politics. The result is obscuration, blunting the most fundamental contradictions ... instead of revealing their depth, what is obtained is bourgeois reformism instead of Marxism" (ibid.). 

Extremely interesting in this regard is that part of V. I. Lenin’s speech at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets, in which he speaks of the “Appeal for all countries” of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, where it was said in particular: 

 “The time has come to begin a decisive struggle against the grasping aspirations of the governments of all countries. The time has come for the peoples to take the solution of the question of war and peace into their own hands." 

 It was about these words that Vladimir Ilyich remarked: 

"Government, whatever form of government it may be, expresses the interests of certain classes, which is why to oppose the government and  among the people… there is the greatest theoretical confusion, there is the greatest political helplessness, there is a condemnation of themselves and their entire policy to the most precarious and unstable position" (vol. 25, pp. 16 - 18). 

Nothing else can be added to these words of V. I. Lenin. 

The policy of so-called peaceful coexistence, based on an agreement between the governments of states with opposite social systems, from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism, essentially boils down to a good intention to make imperialism not be imperialism, it is "the condemnation of themselves and their entire policy to the very precarious and unstable position.

 The next question that arose in my mind when considering the problem of the peaceful coexistence of states with opposite social systems can be formulated as follows: do the contradictions between socialism and imperialism weaken with the course of history? 

It seems to me that the clarification of this question is also important for establishing the very possibility of the peaceful coexistence of socialism with capitalism. 

The program of the CPSU reads:

 “...Today, world capitalism has entered a new ... stage of crisis. More and more countries are falling away from capitalism; the position of imperialism in economic competition with socialism is weakening; the colonial system of imperialism is disintegrating ... - this is the expression of the general crisis of capitalism. 

The liquidation of the capitalist system in a large group of countries, the development and strengthening of the world socialist system, the collapse of the colonial system and the collapse of the old empires, the beginning of the breakdown of the colonial structure of the economy newly-free countries, the expansion of economic ties between these countries and the world of socialism - all this exacerbates the crisis of the world capitalist economy.

 We quite rightly note that

 "The countries of imperialism have lost their former monopoly on supplying the world non-socialist market with the means of production, as well as in the field of credit, loans and technical services" (Khrushchev. Report of the Central Committee to the XXII Congress of the CPSU).

 V. I. Lenin proved that the growth of state-monopoly capital, the territorial division of all land between individual imperialist powers, the struggle for spheres of influence, for spheres of investment of capital, for sales markets, their redistribution, their narrowing - lead and cannot but lead " to a gigantic aggravation of all capitalist contradictions, both within the capitalist countries and between them. V. I. Lenin proved that all these factors, all these contradictions of imperialism lead and cannot but lead to imperialist wars, which are economically inevitable.

 And what do the words of the Program of the CPSU mean about "aggravating the crisis of the world capitalist economy", "eliminating the monopoly of the capitalist states on the supply of equipment and credits", etc.? They mean not only the intensification and aggravation of the internal and external contradictions of imperialism; they also mean the aggravation and intensification of the contradictions between socialism and capitalism.

 I have already referred to VI Lenin's letter to the Eighth Congress of Soviets, in which he pointed out that "a series of the most terrible clashes between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois states is inevitable." Now I must add that the peaceful existence of socialist states with imperialist states is "unthinkable for a long time" not only because, from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism, the peaceful coexistence of two class-hostile, antagonistic camps is unthinkable, but also because peaceful coexistence of two opposing economic competitors "a long time is unthinkable".

 From the point of view of Marxism-Leninism, the narrowing of the imperialist sales market, the narrowing of the spheres of investment of capital, and, consequently, the spheres of political influence, as a result of the active entry into the world market of such a powerful ECONOMIC MONOPOLY as the united socialist camp, lead and cannot but lead to further aggravation of the economic contradictions between socialism and imperialism. In my opinion, as the economic power and economic competitiveness of the socialist countries grow, acting on the world market as a single political and economic monopoly, the economic, and hence the political and military interests of socialism and capitalism will inevitably have to come into ever greater clash, the economic, political, and military antagonisms between the socialist and capitalist states will inevitably sharpen and heat up.

 Let us recall Khrushchev's speech at the 21st Congress of the CPSU, where he said:

 “Competition is widely developed in the capitalist world. When two competitors fight among themselves for a buyer and the buyer eventually goes to one of them, to the one who offers the goods cheaper and of better quality, then after all, the other competitor does not die, he is not deprived of his life ", he is not physically destroyed. We appeal to capitalist countries: let's act in this way, accessible to your understanding. You do not want to call relations between countries a peaceful competition. You prefer the word competition. Please, we agree" II, p. 402).

 Khrushchev said "please", but he forgot to add that, although in the competitive struggle the vanquished is not physically destroyed, he is ruined, left poor and completely submissive to the will of the winner. Khrushchev forgot to add that the laws of capitalist competitive struggle, which do not disdain any means to strangle their economic opponents, long ago, without Khrushchev's call for it, are the laws not only of the internal but also of the foreign policy of the capitalist states.

 Here we come close to the question of the peaceful economic competition between socialism and capitalism, of the revolutionary influence of example.

 In a report at the February Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU on February 14, 1964, M. A. Suslov said:

 “Marxist-Leninists ... see the revolutionary significance of the victories of socialism in economic competition in that they stimulate the class struggle of the working people, making them conscious fighters for socialism. Peaceful economic competition not only does not doom the masses to passive expectation, but, on the contrary, stimulates their revolutionary activity."

 And further, -

 "The question of peaceful economic competition is by no means only economic in its essence. It has a deep political meaning: to defeat capitalism economically means to seriously facilitate all revolutionary forces in their struggle against imperialism."

 M. A. Suslov is right. Taken by itself, the question of the revolutionary influence of example fully and completely corresponds to Lenin's instruction that socialism should exert its main influence on the course of the world revolutionary movement through its economic successes. But what does this Leninist instruction mean?

 It seems to me that, in essence, it means that socialism must clearly demonstrate to the working masses of the capitalist countries that only the socialist system provides the vast majority of the population with a higher standard of living than the capitalist system, because, in this sense, Suslov is also right, " in our time, the merits of socialism are judged not only by theoretical works, but above all by deeds, by how communists practically solve the problems of building a new society.”

 It is clear that only by defeating (already defeating!) capitalism economically can we speak concretely about the revolutionary influence of example.

 This most important task of ours - to defeat capitalism economically – we have not yet solved. And I think that this statement of mine does not need proof. Well, if there are doubters, let them listen to Khrushchev, who at the 20th Congress said:

 “Only incorrigible braggarts can turn a blind eye to the fact that economically we have not yet surpassed the most developed capitalist countries, that our level of production is still insufficient to ensure a prosperous life for all members of society” (Stenotchet of the 20th Congress, p. 196).

 And in 1964, Khrushchev repeated this idea even more colorfully and more definitely:

 "If we do not show in practice the advantages of our socialist system, the advantages in the rapid growth of the country's economy, in the steady growth of material and spiritual wealth, if the Soviet people do not live better than they lived before the revolution, then many will say: listen, they say that Communists are building socialism, but why do we need it? Here Russians, they say, live under socialism, but go without pants, so do you want to follow their example? And even under capitalism we wear not only pants, but pants, and even a jacket to boot (Speech at a meeting of Soviet-German friendship on June 12, 1964). 

I will allow myself to linger a little on this quotation, because it is another characteristic example of what, after the October 1964 Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, it is customary to call Khrushchev's theoretical "carelessness".

 What does the future tense mean in this quote?

 In the direct meaning of Khrushchev's words, it means that up to the present time, we, that is, the socialist system, have not yet shown the advantages of our system and, moreover, that we, the Soviet people, are not yet living better than we lived before the revolution.

 Wow "theoretical carelessness"! It seems to me that this is precisely the kind of carelessness about which V. I. Lenin said:

 "I am asking if it is permissible to speak in such a tone in the Communist Party? This is counter-revolutionary" (vol. 31, p. 223).

 Forgive me this lyrical digression ...

 But the fact remains that it is too early for us to talk about the revolutionary influence of our example as a stimulator of the class revolutionary struggle of the working masses against capitalism. In the words of Khrushchev, for this we should at least put on pants.

 We recognized as real and correct the proposition that "in our time the merits of socialism are judged ... primarily by deeds, by how communists practically solve the problems of building a new society." If we compare this position with the thesis of the Program of the CPSU on peaceful economic competition and with our numerous statements that we are still quite far from the standard of living in the advanced capitalist countries, then the question is, does not such a comparison mean a very transparent and unambiguous appeal to the working masses of the developed capitalist countries with an appeal not to hasten with revolutions, to refrain from decisive action until the moment when it becomes clear to them, these working masses, that the socialist "seller" offers them only cheaper and better quality than the "seller".

 It seems to me that we can shout “long live the socialist revolution!” as much as we like, but [if] along with this we teach, namely, teach that as long as this very revolution did not give the working masses, in the material sense, greater benefits than the capitalist system, such science and similar agitation for a socialist revolution contains nothing but hypocritical phrases and objectively pursues completely opposite goals.

 This is one side of the question of peaceful economic competition between socialist and capitalist states.

 But there is also another side. M. A. Suslov is right when he declares that "the question of peaceful economic competition is in its essence far from being only economic," that "it contains a deep political meaning." But, raising the question of the peaceful economic competition of socialism with capitalism, of the revolutionary influence of example, Suslov directs our attention to only one side of this political question, bypassing the very thesis about the possibility of a PEACEFUL competition of socialism with capitalism.

 Socialism needs peace. Under the conditions of peace, all the advantages of the socialist mode of production over the capitalist are revealed to the fullest extent. Peaceful economic competition brings with it, in the final analysis, victory, both economic and political, over capitalism. All this is clear. All this is undeniable. ONLY PEACE IS NEEDED.

 And here again the main problem of war and peace emerges in full growth.

 And in general, one cannot but say that the theoreticians and compilers of the Program of the CPSU suffer from a strange forgetfulness. This forgetfulness is also clearly manifested in the existing, according to the Program, separation of foreign policy from domestic policy, in the desire to separate them from each other, to present them as independent of each other.

 In the section on the general crisis of imperialism, the program of the CPSU names among the facts in which this crisis finds its expression the following: 

"An unprecedented intensification of political reaction along all lines, the renunciation of bourgeois freedoms and the establishment of fascist regimes in a number of countries; the sharpening of the contradictions of imperialism with the growth of state-monopoly capitalism and the growth of militarism."

 Many materials on the CPSU Program give a broader and more impressive picture of the full-scale offensive of reaction along the entire front of social and political life within the capitalist countries. And if we are Marxist-Leninists, it is unlikely for us to forget V. I. Lenin’s instruction that

 "to single out "foreign policy" from politics in general, or even more so to counterpose foreign policy to domestic policy, is fundamentally wrong, not a Marxist, not a scientific idea" ("On the Caricature of Marxism and on "Imperialist Economism").

 If this is so, if this instruction of V. I. Lenin does not apply to dogma and is valid in our time, then does this not mean that all attempts by theorists and supporters of the CPSU Program to combine statements about a full-scale offensive of reaction within the capitalist states with assertions about the possibility of these states pursuing a non-reactionary foreign policy, a policy of peaceful coexistence – doesn’t this mean that they look like a caricature of Marxism?

 Of course, and this is not disputed, a world war, especially a thermonuclear one, would be a terrible disaster for humanity.

And communists must exert every effort and means to prevent a new world war, which, from the point of view of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of classes and class struggle,  IT IS INEVITABLE AS LONG AS IMPERIALISM EXISTS ON THE EARTH IN THE PERSON OF THE LARGEST AND ECONOMICALLY ADVANCED STATES. 

As the main stronghold, the idea of ​​the peaceful coexistence of states with opposite social systems presupposes the rejection of war as a means of resolving disputed interstate issues. The program of the CPSU proclaims that

 "The CPSU and the entire Soviet people will continue to oppose any and all predatory wars, including wars between imperialist states, local wars aimed at strangling the liberation movements of the people, and consider it their duty to support the sacred struggle of the oppressed peoples, their just liberation war against imperialism" (p. 62). 

This provision of the Program of the CPSU, despite its outward beauty, in my opinion, also contradicts Marxism-Leninism. 

Speaking about the contradictions between the capitalist states, V. I. Lenin pointed out: 

"Can we remain indifferent and only say, as communists; 'we will propagate communism within these countries.' That's right, but that's not all. The practical task of communist politics is the task of exploiting this enmity, pitting them against each other... Are we committing crimes against communism? No, because we are doing this as a socialist state, conducting communist propaganda and compelled to use every hour given by circumstances in order to grow stronger as quickly as possible" (vol. 31, p. 415).

 V. I. Lenin constantly returned to this idea. He said:

 "We cannot wage war... Politically, we must use the differences between opponents, and only deep differences explained by the deepest economic reasons" (vol. 31, p. 419).

 On the basis of Marxist analysis, V. I. Lenin revealed the irreconcilable contradictions that existed in his time between the imperialist countries. Lenin pointed to the contradictions between Japan and America, between the Entente and Germany, between America and the rest of the capitalist world.

 As you know, Lenin's analysis was brilliantly justified. And precisely because the party in its foreign policy steadfastly followed Lenin's instructions, the world's first socialist state succeeded in stretching out the peace it had won for 20 years.

 Without any embellishment, openly and loudly, not afraid of accusations of "cannibalism" and "anti-humanism", in the most difficult and tense years of the existence of Soviet power, the great realist declared:

 “The circumstances would save us even more if the imperialist states were at war. If we are forced to endure such scoundrels as capitalist thieves, each of whom sharpens a knife against us, it is our direct duty to turn these knives against each other” (vol. 31 , p. 419). 

I admit that the words of the Program of the CPSU about the "struggle" of the CPSU and the Soviet people against the wars between the imperialist states are said for red flags. But let's go further.

 What does the rejection of wars in general, of all and all wars, mean? It seems to me that this question can be answered correctly only by returning again to the work of V. I. Lenin, in which he wrote that "if we are forced to endure such scoundrels as capitalist thieves ..."

 The words of V. I. Lenin, which I have underlined, has a great meaning, they contain a fundamental, radical opposition to the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of wars from the point of view on this issue of the Program of the CPSU.

In the same speech, a few words above, just as openly and loudly, to the whole world, as he proclaimed that a war between the imperialist states would greatly help us, V. I. Lenin declared:

 "As soon as we are strong enough to defeat all of capitalism, we immediately grab it by the collar" (vol. 31, p. 413).

 The program of the CPSU, its theoreticians and supporters solemnly proclaimed that today it is not imperialism, but socialism that determines the fate of the world, that in our country socialism has finally and irrevocably triumphed, i.e., that now we are not afraid of any military or other encroachments of imperialism.

 V. I. Lenin taught (I have already referred to these quotes): 

"The foreign policy of the Soviet government must not be changed in any way. Our military training has not yet been completed ...".

 "Our point of view is this: as long as great concessions and the greatest caution..." "As long as capitalism and socialism remain, they cannot live peacefully..." "Only after we overthrow, finally defeat and expropriate the bourgeoisie throughout the world, and not just in one country, wars will become impossible." "The final victory in one country is impossible."

 If we compare all these statements of V. I. Lenin with one another, then we will clearly see how they are all inextricably linked into one whole. The question of the final victory of socialism in our country, the question of proletarian internationalism, the question of world revolution—all these questions will prove to be inseparable from the question of revolutionary wars.

According to V. I. Lenin, socialism can finally win only if socialist revolutions are victorious in a number of major, advanced capitalist countries. Socialism and capitalism cannot live peacefully. War between them is inevitable. Wars between imperialist states are inevitable. Wars bring innumerable disasters to humanity.

 And, hence - as soon as we become stronger than imperialism - "we will immediately grab him by the collar."

 The clear, consistent, Marxist thinking of V. I. Lenin gave him the right to declare with good reason:

 “We are not pacifists. We are opposed to imperialist wars over the division of spoils among the capitalists, but we have always declared it absurd if the revolutionary proletariat were to renounce revolutionary wars that might be necessary in the interests of socialism” (Vol. 23, p. 361).

 “To tell us that we must wage only a defensive war, when a knife is still raised above us, when, despite our hundreds of proposals and in the face of unheard-of concessions to which we are making ... - to tell us this means to repeat ... the phrases of the petty-bourgeois. If, in front of such constantly actively hostile forces, we should take a vow, as we are offered, that we will never embark on certain actions that may turn out to be offensive in military-strategic terms, then we would not only be fools but also be criminals. That is where these pacifist phrases and resolutions lead us. They lead to the fact that they want to tie the Soviet government, surrounded by enemies, hand and foot and hand over to be torn to pieces by world capitalist predators" (vol. 31, p. 488 ).

 The program of the CPSU proclaimed that 

"The CPSU and the entire Soviet people ... consider it their duty to support the sacred struggle of the oppressed peoples, their just wars of liberation against imperialism." 

We will support... And how, how? Morally, financially?

We accuse the imperialists of "a one-sided, class approach to the idea of ​​cooperation between socialist and capitalist states" (see, for example, the book Some Problems in the Theory and Practice of Building Communism, 1961). Curiously, what other approach would we like to see from the imperialists? Extra-class? "Public"? 

The imperialists are pouring blood over the land of socialist Vietnam, and we - we get off with loud phrases ...

 While proclaiming support for the sacred struggle of the oppressed peoples, the Program of the CPSU, meanwhile, completely ignores Lenin's instruction that when

 “we are talking about defending our alliance with the oppressed class, with the oppressed peoples,” we must “remain faithful to this alliance ... This task is not easy. This task does not let us forget that under certain conditions we cannot do without a revolutionary war. the revolutionary class cannot renounce revolutionary war, because otherwise it will force itself into ridiculous pacifism... It is impossible to renounce this war.“ 

This is exactly what the Program of the CPSU did, proclaiming the renunciation of wars in general as the fundamental principle of the policy of peaceful coexistence.

 The main argument of theorists and defenders of the policy of peaceful coexistence is that they believe -

 "... although the nature of imperialism, its predatory essence remain unchanged, the balance of forces on the world stage has changed, the place and role of imperialism in the world economy and world politics have changed, the possibility of its influence on the course of events is decreasing. All this is forcing the imperialists to go to peaceful coexistence" (Suslov, report at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU 14/11 - 64, Emphasized - GM).

 The balance of forces in the world arena is forcing the imperialists to go for peaceful coexistence - this is the main argument of the theoreticians and compilers of the CPSU Program in defense of the thesis that the peaceful coexistence of socialist and imperialist states is possible.

 What can be said about this? It is indisputable that today is not 1924, but the year 1964. It is indisputable that the balance of forces in the world has changed, and has changed in favor of socialism. But, when speaking about the change in the balance of forces in the world, do we really have the right to forget, not to take into account the fact that in this case we are not talking about the superiority of the forces of socialism over the forces of imperialism, that for the time being we cannot talk about the simple equality of the economic power of socialism and capitalism? ? Or do we want to be in the place of those "incorrigible braggarts" about whom Khrushchev spoke at the 20th Congress of the CPSU?

 According to the most recent official data (see Kommunist, No. 8, 1965, p. 51), in 1963 all the socialist countries accounted for about 38 percent of world industrial output. As for the military might of the camp of socialism and the camp of imperialism, in my opinion, here too, if we want to base our policy on a real base, we have no right to forget that, despite the falling away from the imperialist camp of a number of European and Asian countries, with the advent of nuclear weapons and modern means of delivering these weapons to the target, the purely military capabilities of imperialism have not diminished.

 It seems clear to me that as soon as we recognize that the nature of imperialism, its predatory essence, has not changed, just as soon we must recognize that we cannot force imperialism, which is not inferior to us in strength, to cease to be imperialism.

 Moreover, From the point of view of Marxism-Leninism, even the complete superiority - economic and military - of the forces of socialism over the forces of imperialism does not at all mean that in this case a war between them can be prevented without first overthrowing the power of capital in the main imperialist states. 

This is not fatalism, not Hegelianism. War is not an eternal and necessary element in the development of human society. According to the Program of the CPSU, - 

"With the destruction of imperialism, there will be no source of wars on earth."

V. I. Lenin never harbored illusions that the superior forces of socialism would by themselves compel or could compel the imperialist states to calmly watch their system crumbling. I have repeatedly quoted Lenin's words that

 "we live not only in a state, but also in a system of states, and the existence of the Soviet Republic next to the imperialist states for a long time is unthinkable." 

In the words of V.I. Lenin there is not even a hint that the military superiority of the forces of socialism over the forces of capitalism (which Lenin, being a great Marxist dialectician, undoubtedly had in mind when considering the period of "the existence of the Soviet Republic next to the imperialist states") is capable of forcing capitalism to surrender its class positions.

 Fear of the power of nuclear weapons, consciousness of the superiority of the forces of socialism, "consciousness of one's responsibility for the fate of mankind," etc. - cannot force the capitalist class and its governments, "against their wishes", to follow the principles of the policy of peaceful coexistence, as long as and insofar as the nature of imperialism remains imperialist in the Marxist-Leninist sense of the word.

 Speaking about the complete and final victory of socialism in our country, V. I. Lenin directly and categorically taught that

 “We have known all along and will not forget that our cause is an international cause, and until a coup is carried out in all states, including the most advanced, rich, and civilized, until then our victory is only half a victory or perhaps less ... We know that they will have negligible chances, we also know that our military forces will be stronger and more powerful than any other power, but with all this, the danger has not disappeared, it exists and will exist until the world revolution wins" (vol. 31, p. 371. Emphasized by me - GM). 

Unfortunately, I don’t remember exactly, but it seems to me that at the 22nd Congress, speaking to the delegates of the Congress with the substantiation of the thesis about the objective necessity for the imperialists to follow the principles of the policy of peaceful coexistence, Khrushchev drew socialism in the form of an elephant, and imperialism - a tiger, and said, something like, since the elephant is stronger than the tiger, the latter, despite the fact that he is a strong and bloodthirsty predator, never risks attacking the elephant, "realizing" that the elephant is stronger.

 Let's try and follow this allegory. Does a tiger really never attack an elephant, or do such cases happen? There are, and people know them. And they happen when a hungry tiger does not find a victim to satisfy the feeling of hunger. In addition, every person knows very well how every living being fights for life to the very last strength, how madly it resists any attempts to deprive him of life or the usual conditions of existence. 

If the goal of the "socialist elephant" is to "peacefully" devour the "imperialist tiger" and the elephant does not hide this intention, and the tiger understands its seriousness, would it not be more logical to assume that the tiger will protect its life from such " peaceful" aspirations of the elephant?

 Of course, you can compose such a fairy tale. It already happened, children, that on a planet called Earth, a pretty peaceful and herbivorous elephant and a predatory bloodthirsty tiger were forced to live side by side. True, children, when this elephant was still small, boasted that when he grew up big and strong, he would destroy the tiger that ate the poor goats and antelopes. But this is a saying, a fairy tale is ahead.

 And then the day came when the peace-loving elephant called the bloodthirsty tiger to him and announced to him: “Listen to the tiger, you are too bloodthirsty. There are many forests and meadows on the earth, and there is enough plant food for all of us." The tiger growled: “What are you talking about, elephant! I am a tiger, not a cow. I will die of hunger if I don’t eat meat! But then you yourself said that soon all the goats and antelopes will gather their strength and trample me. What do you want me to do - sit and wait for this moment? No, I won’t. 

The elephant got angry, trumpeted: “Oh, you are so-and-so! Don’t listen to me, the elephant?! But do you know that if there is a war, then I, the elephant tail between legs), for sure I will defeat you?! You know? So I’ll tell you this: I’m not some bloodthirsty beast, and I won’t go to war with you, although I’m stronger than you. I offer you peaceful coexistence. It’s profitable for both of us - you will eat meat for some time, and I will raise those goats and antelopes who, when they grow up and gain strength, will pull out only your claws and teeth, but will not physically destroy you. 

The tiger thought: "What to do? Go to the elephant with the war? It's scary and dangerous." And the tiger answered: "Okay, elephant, I agree to peaceful coexistence - let your baby elephants, goats and antelopes grow, I will not touch them. I will only eat from my herd."

 The elephant was delighted that he outwitted the stupid bloodthirsty tiger. And the elephants, goats and antelopes grew up, attacked the tiger, and trampled him to death. And a nice peace-loving elephant stood aside and rejoiced. 

This is how, children, communism was established on planet Earth.

 Only and everything. As V. I. Lenin said,

 “All kinds of transformations are possible, even a fool into a smart one, but such a transformation is rarely real.

 Does all of the above about the problem of the so-called peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, mean that Marxism-Leninism cannot imagine the course of the historical development of human society without such social phenomena as war? 

No, it doesn't. War can not only be prevented, but completely destroyed. And it is precisely in this that there is a complete unity of views between V. I. Lenin and the Program of the CPSU. 

The program of the CPSU, following Lenin, repeats that

"With the destruction of imperialism, there will be no source of wars on earth."

Only. Further, there are no points of contact between V. I. Lenin and the Program of the CPSU.

 The theoreticians and drafters of the Program of the CPSU assert that war can be prevented by forcing the "ruling circles" of the imperialist states to agree to renounce war, to take into account the class interests of socialism, and to renounce imperialist policy in general. The theoreticians and compilers of the Program of the CPSU believe that the superiority of the forces of socialism over the forces of imperialism is forcing the governments of the imperialist countries, contrary to their wishes, to agree to this class capitulation out of a sense of fear of imminent defeat in a possible war, out of a sense of awareness of their responsibility for the fate of all mankind, finally , under pressure from the progressive public of their countries, not interested in the war, etc. etc. 

The program of the CPSU builds its provisions on the assumption that, having succeeded in achieving the implementation of the policy of peaceful coexistence, having succeeded in concluding an agreement with imperialism on the renunciation of war, on disarmament, we will devote all our forces and means to the speedy solution of our great international task - building a communist society, this undeniable and irresistible for all revolutionary example.

 And then, when we achieve this, when we provide the Soviet people with a standard of living unattainable for capitalism, then, according to the theoreticians of the CPSU Program, in all capitalist countries, including the most advanced and developed, socialist revolutions, imperialism will break out, will be destroyed and the very source of wars on earth will be destroyed.

 The program of the CPSU builds a theory of the destruction of capitalism on earth as the very source of wars, counting on the "prudence" of the imperialists, completely ignoring Marxist-Leninist philosophy, which teaches that the concept of "prudence" is a class concept and that what is prudent for us is not at all must necessarily be reasonable for the capitalists. This oblivion of the Marxist-Leninist ideology, this "theoretical carelessness" leads to the fact that the calculations of the Program of the CPSU turn out to be built on sand; it turns out that in the end they assume not the prudence of the imperialists, but their stupidity.

 The prudence of the imperialists, their class prudence, tells them that it is not in their interest to allow socialism to develop and expand freely, for socialism is their gravedigger. And the imperialists have done, are doing and will do everything in their power to become the gravediggers of their own gravedigger, not neglecting any, the most extreme means to achieve this goal.

And the events in the world of recent years (Congo, Panama, the Dominican Republic, North Vietnam, Cuba, etc.) only confirm that the imperialists are prudent in their own way and have no illusions about the idea of ​​peaceful coexistence. And if one takes a Marxist-Leninist, class point of view, in my opinion, it would be simply stupid to reproach the imperialists for the fact that, despite our appeals and peace-loving proposals, they nevertheless pursue a prudent, from their class point of view, imperialist policy, not any other policy.

 The Marxist-Leninist posing of the question of combating war, of preventing war has nothing in common with the posing of this question by the Program of the CPSU.

 Here are the Leninist, concrete ways and means of achieving this most noble goal - the deliverance of mankind from wars:

 “All efforts should be directed towards using the mood of the masses in favor of peace. But how to use it?

 Recognizing the slogan of peace and repeating it ... would be deceiving the people with the illusion that the present governments, the present commanding classes are capable, without "teaching" (or, more correctly, eliminating) them, a series of revolutions for a world that in any way satisfies democracy and the working class. class ... There is nothing more harmful than this deception. There is nothing more clouding the eyes of the workers, suggesting to them the deceptive idea of ​​the superficial contradiction between capitalism and socialism, nothing more embellishing capitalist slavery. No, we must use the mood of the masses in favor of peace to explain to the masses that the blessings they expect from the world are impossible without a series of revolutions. The end of wars, peace among peoples...-precisely our ideal, but only bourgeois sophists can deceive the masses by tearing this ideal away from the immediate, direct preaching of the revolution.

 "One of the forms of fooling the working class is pacifism and the abstract preaching of peace. Under capitalism, and especially in its imperialist stage, wars are inevitable. Peace propaganda at the present time, not accompanied by a call for revolutionary action by the masses, can only sow illusions, corrupt the proletariat by instilling confidence in the humanity of the bourgeoisie" ("Pacifism and the slogan of peace").

 “Unrelated to the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat, the struggle for peace is only a pacifist phrase... We cannot and must not assume the pose of “statesmen” and draw up “concrete” peace programs. On the contrary, we must explain to the masses the deceitfulness of any hopes for a democratic a world without the development of revolutionary class struggle... The masses must not be lulled by the hope of peace without the overthrow of capitalism" ("To the International Socialist Commission").

 "Wars are rooted in the very essence of capitalism; they will cease only when the capitalist system ceases to exist, or when the enormity of the human and financial losses caused by military-technical development, and the popular indignation caused by armaments, will lead to the elimination of this system" ("Militant militarism") .

"The war cannot be ended "at will". It cannot be ended by the decision of one side ... The war cannot be ended by the "agreement" of the socialists of different countries, the "action" of the proletarians of different countries, the "will" of the peoples - etc. - all phrases of this kind ... - nothing but the empty, naive, kind wishes of the petty bourgeois. There is nothing more harmful than these phrases ... It is impossible to achieve peace without the overthrow of the power of capital, without the transfer of state power to another class, to the proletariat "(" Tasks of the proletariat in our revolution.")

 "Every party who wants to belong to the Third International is obliged to expose not only frank social patriotism, but also the falsity and hypocrisy of social pacifism: to systematically prove to the workers that without the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, there will be no international arbitration courts, no talk about reducing armaments, no" democratic "reorganization of the League of Peoples will save mankind from new imperialist wars" ("On the conditions for admission to the Comintern").

 “The socialist, revolutionary proletarian, internationalist argues differently: ... my task, the task of the representative of the revolutionary proletariat, is to prepare the world proletarian revolution as the only salvation from the horrors of the world war” (“The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky”).

 In these statements of V. I. Lenin, an integral Marxist formulation of the question of the fight against war is given. What does Lenin teach?

 1) To the fact that without a revolutionary overthrow of the power of capital there can be no question of the possibility of preventing new wars;

 2) that "outside of the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat, the struggle for peace is only a pacifist phrase";

 3) the fact that the slogans of peace without revolutionary propaganda, references to the possibility of an agreement with the imperialists, to the action of the proletarians of all countries, to the will of the peoples, etc. – (are) empty, naive wishes;

 4) the fact that there is nothing more harmful than these phrases and wishes, since they inspire the masses with "a deceptive idea of ​​a shallow contradiction between capitalism and socialism", sow illusions, corrupt the proletariat by instilling confidence in the humanity of the bourgeoisie - that is, the fact that objectively all these naïve phrases and wishes ultimately lead the proletariat away from the revolutionary struggle towards the reformist struggle and, consequently, objectively help not to prevent war, but to bring it closer.

 According to VI Lenin, THE ONLY MEANS OF SAVING HUMANITY FROM NEW WARS IS THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, THE REVOLUTIONARY OVERTHROW OF THE POWER OF CAPITAL.

 According to the Program of the CPSU, humanity can be saved from new wars without overthrowing the power of capital, by pursuing a policy of peaceful coexistence, which amounts to an agreement with the imperialists to renounce war.

 Does the call mean "to curb the warmongers", "raise the sacred wrath of the peoples against those who are obsessed with crazy ideas of war and militarism", etc. slogans Lenin’s call for a revolutionary overthrow of the power of capital? No, it doesn't.

 Does the statement that "when the adherents of a more or less moderate policy prevail under the pressure of the masses, international tension is defused" mean Lenin's call for a revolutionary struggle against imperialism? No, it doesn't.

 Does the statement that "we are convinced that the revolutionary struggle of the working people, the general democratic upsurge, the growing might of socialism ... can and must force the imperialists, against their wishes, to reckon with the demand of the peoples for disarmament" mean Lenin's call for revolutionary struggle? against imperialism? No, it doesn't.

 Does the assertion of the Program of the CPSU mean that the policy of peaceful coexistence meets the vital interests of all mankind, with the exception of "big monopolies and the military," does it mean Lenin's call for a revolutionary struggle against imperialism? No, it doesn't.

 All these statements, assertions and positions objectively mean one thing, namely: the substitution of Lenin's call for a revolutionary struggle for peace, which "without a series of revolutions is a petty-bourgeois utopia", a call for a "revolutionary struggle" against individual "immoderate" representatives of imperialism, which suits the imperialist class perfectly.

 Speaking at the February Plenum on February 14, 1964, M. A. Suslov said:

 “It is absurd to oppose the struggle for peace, for the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, to the revolutionary class struggle of the working class ... For Marxist-Leninists, there is no and cannot be a dilemma; either the struggle for peace, or the revolutionary struggle. Both struggles are interconnected and ultimately directed against imperialism."

 Doesn't the very formulation of this question reveal the fundamental difference between Lenin's directives on the struggle for peace and the position of the theoreticians and defenders of the policy of peaceful coexistence? In my opinion, it is revealed, because only by separating the revolutionary struggle - the struggle to overthrow the power of capital - from the struggle for peace, it is possible to assert, as Suslov does, that both struggles are interconnected and, in the final analysis, directed against imperialism.

 This is not a Leninist posing of the question. For V. I. Lenin, there was not and cannot be a genuine, real struggle for peace without a struggle to overthrow the power of capital.

 In connection with all of the above, in this section, the attitude of V. I. Lenin to the contemporary movement of supporters of peace is of particular interest. This attitude is most clearly expressed in his article "Notes on the Question of the Tasks of Our Delegation in The Hague," an article that has been completely forgotten today. And this article is worth quoting in full:

 

“On the question of combating the danger of war in connection with the conference at The Hague, I think that the greatest difficulty is to overcome the prejudice that this question is clear, simple, and comparatively easy.

Let us answer the war with a strike or a revolution—that is what all the leaders of the reformists usually say to the working class. And very often the seeming radicalness of these answers satisfies and reassures the workers and peasants.

 Perhaps the most correct method would be to begin with the sharpest refutation of such an opinion: to declare that, especially now, after the recent war, only the most stupid and hopelessly deceitful people can assure that such an answer to the question of combating the war where anything is suitable. To declare that it is impossible to "respond" to the war with a strike, just as it is impossible to "respond" to the war with a revolution in the simplest and literal sense of these expressions.

 It is necessary to explain to people the real situation of how great is the mystery in which the war is born, and how helpless the ordinary organization of workers, although it calls itself revolutionary, in the face of a really impending war.

 It is desirable... to show with special concreteness that the theoretical recognition that war is criminal, that war is unacceptable for a socialist, etc., turns out to be empty words, because there is no concreteness in such a formulation of the question.

... Perhaps the most important means of attracting the masses to war are precisely those sophisms with which the bourgeois press operates, and the most important circumstance explaining our impotence against war is that we either do not analyze these sophisms in advance, or, even more , we get off in relation to them with a cheap, boastful, and completely empty phrase that we will not allow war, that we fully understand the criminality of war, etc. ...

 It seems to me that if we have several people at the Hague Conference who are able to ... make a speech against war, then the most important thing (Sub. - GM) will be to refute the opinion that those present are opponents of war, that they understand how war may and must attack them at the most unexpected moment, as if they were somehow aware of the method of struggle against the war, as if they were in a position to take a reasonable and attainable path in the struggle against war ...

 I think that this question should be explained with unusual detail and explained in two ways. Firstly, by telling and analyzing what happened during the previous war, and declaring to all those present that they do not know this or that they pretend to know it, in fact they turn a blind eye to what the crux of the matter is, without knowing which there can be no talk of any struggle against war. Secondly, we must take examples of present-day conflicts, even the most insignificant ones, and explain by their example how war can break out every day...

 On the question of fighting the war, I remember that there are a number of statements by our Communist deputies, both in parliaments and in speeches outside parliament, statements of this kind, which contain monstrously wrong and monstrously frivolous things about fighting the war. I think that such statements ... must be opposed with all resoluteness and mercilessly naming each such speaker. You can soften as you like, especially, if necessary, your opinion about such a speaker, but you cannot pass over in silence a single such case, because a frivolous attitude to this issue is such an evil, the second (the main Ed) outweighs everything else and to which it is absolutely impossible to be indulgent.

 There are people who say that such an attitude of Lenin and the movement of supporters of peace was explained by the concrete historical situation of his day - that it was a question of the era of the undivided rule of imperialism on earth, when socialism was still very weak; when a small peace movement was the privilege of Western European Social Democracy, and when, finally, the war itself did not threaten mankind with such grave disasters as now.

 It is argued that today, when humanity has realized what disastrous consequences a new world war would lead to for it, when, therefore, a multi-million army of peace supporters in all countries has risen under the banner of peace, and when this army has the opportunity to rely on such a material force as the might of a united socialist camps - imperialist governments can be forced to renounce war.

 Quite a lot has been said about this.

 But what do the theoreticians and defenders of the Program of the CPSU say about the contemporary peace movement? They say (see, for example, Suslov's report at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU on April 14, 1964) that the modern peace movement does not and cannot set itself the specific revolutionary tasks of fighting the war, because it has a "general democratic character. "

 And what does this mean? In a Leninist way, and I am convinced that V.I. Lenin was fully and completely right in his attitude towards the so-called “general democratic” peace movement, this means that the present peace movement, in essence, is engaged only in clouding the consciousness of the working people with hopes for the possibility of a lasting peace without overthrowing the power of capital, diverting the forces of the people from the revolutionary struggle to the reformist struggle, from struggle against imperialism as such, to fight against its individual representatives - that is, it is engaged not in preventing war, but in bringing it closer.

 That is why V. I. Lenin believed that such an "occupation",

 "there is an evil that outweighs everything else."

 Among bourgeois pacifists, the “theory” was widely spread, which was very clearly and briefly stated by the President of India Radhakrishnan at the meeting of Soviet-Indian friendship on 18/1X-1964:

 "The destructive nature of nuclear weapons, which have now become part of the military equipment of the armed forces, is in itself a factor preventing war. We came to the very edge of the abyss, but then we retreated. Why did this happen? Because we realized how destructive of nature is nuclear weapons. We realized that if they were used, no one would be left on earth, and humanity would perish completely and irrevocably."

 Is it necessary to repeat that such theories have nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism? Answering people who claim that in the event of a nuclear war, all of humanity will perish, perish "finally and irrevocably", Mao Zedong once said:

“If we fight, then atomic and hydrogen weapons will be used. I personally think that there will be such suffering in the whole world when half of humanity will die, perhaps more than half. I argued with Nehru on this issue pessimistically. I told him that if half of humanity is destroyed, then half will remain, but imperialism will be completely destroyed and there will be only socialism in the whole world, and in half a century or a whole century the population will grow again, even more than half " (cited in Pravda dated 21/1X-1963).

 Around this statement of Mao Zedong, an unhealthy hype was raised, in my opinion. We "remembered" this statement, made back in 1957, in order to assert that since the

"Chinese leaders argue that half or one hundred percent of humanity will be destroyed in the fire of a new war", then according to them "it turns out that it is possible to risk war, since a "beautiful future" awaits the other half" (Statement of the Soviet Government of 21/1X-63 ). 

This statement is a clear overstatement. We ourselves gave the words of Mao Zedong a monstrous meaning that was not characteristic of them, while they are directed against the anti-Marxist views of bourgeois pacifists who see "the end of the world" in a possible thermonuclear war.

 From the point of view of Marxism-Leninism, we must, if we are Marxists, not ignore statements like the one made by Radhakrishnan - we must immediately refute them, as Mao Zedong did. If we are Marxist-revolutionaries, we must immediately refute such views, for they inexorably lead to propaganda of the slogan "peace at all costs", to the policy of class cooperation, class reconciliation of states with different social systems. If we are Marxists, we, as V. I. Lenin taught us, "must not allow ourselves to be intimidated by war ... crush our thoughts with the horror of war." They are speaking:

 "If the imperialist aggressors nevertheless dare to unleash a new world war, the peoples ... will sweep away and bury imperialism" (Program of the CPSU).

 "If the imperialist madmen unleash a world war, then capitalism will be swept away and buried" (Suslov. Report at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU 14/11-64).

 "If the enemies unleash a war, our hand will not tremble to use all our capabilities, all our military might in order to defeat the enemy with a retaliatory strike" (Khrushchev. Speech at a meeting of Soviet-German friendship on 13 / VI-64).

 The question is, are in fact all these statements of ours in any way contrary to the statement of Mao Zedong? Do they have any other meaning? Don't we also assume that if the imperialists unleash a new world war, it will bring enormous destruction and sacrifice to all peoples and countries, especially small ones? Do we, declaring that in the event of war, the peoples will sweep away and bury imperialism, do we not proceed from the fact that, despite all the horrors and destruction of a possible thermonuclear war, socialism will triumph on earth, i.e. great future of mankind?

 And Mao Tsedong, and, this time, we, have not forgotten V. I. Lenin’s instructions that  

no matter what the destruction of culture may be, it cannot be expunged from historical life, it will be difficult to renew it, but no destruction will ever bring this culture to disappear completely. In this or that part of it, in this or that material remains, this culture is ineradicable, the only difficulties will be in its renewal" (vol. 27, pp. 104-105).

 The modern peace movement seems to me to be assembled on a very shaky and unreliable basis - on the basis of liberal-bourgeois humanism and pacifism. And only one factor unites it - the fear of the huge destructive power of nuclear weapons.

 Of course, nuclear weapons are terrible weapons, "inhuman" weapons. But are there any humane weapons at all? Is there a guarantee that tomorrow or the day after tomorrow a new, no less effective, but more "humane" weapon will not appear? Something like the notorious American "sleep" bomb? Is there a guarantee that tomorrow or the day after tomorrow there will be no weapons that, without causing any harm to human health, will allow us to seize other people's territories and enslave peoples without bloodshed? There is no such guarantee and cannot be because the possibilities of the human mind are unlimited. 

And I have no doubt that if such a weapon appears tomorrow, the entire modern movement of peace supporters will quickly fall apart, since what unites it - nuclear weapons - will disappear. 

Did V. I. Lenin foresee the appearance in the future of weapons of enormous destructive power? Undoubtedly, for he was a great dialectic Marxist. And, in my opinion, it was precisely such a weapon that Lenin had in mind when he wrote that: 

"Wars are rooted in the very essence of capitalism; they will stop only when the capitalist system ceases to exist, or when the enormity of the human and financial losses caused by military-technical development, and the popular indignation caused by armaments, will lead to the elimination of this system" ("Militant militarism"). 

V. I. Lenin pointed out: 

"Conferences with the so-called programs of "actions” up to now have been reduced only to the fact that they proclaimed with more or less completeness the program of simple pacifism. Marxism is not pacifism. It is necessary to fight for the speedy prevention of war. But only when calling for a revolutionary struggle is the requirement, " world" takes on a proletarian character. Without a series of revolutions... the world is a petty-bourgeois utopia. The only real program of action would be a Marxist program that gives the masses a complete and clear answer to what has happened, explaining what imperialism is and how to fight it.. Only such a program, which would show that we believe in ourselves, we believe in Marxism ... would ensure us sooner or later the sympathy of the genuine proletarian masses" ("Socialism and War"). 

I would like to end this section with a reminder of what, according to V.I. Lenin, was and is the very crux of the issue of combating war: 

"The crux of the question of pacifism ... the idea that war is not connected with capitalism is not a continuation of the politics of peacetime. 

This is theoretical falsehood, practical-bypassing the social revolution "(Letter to I. Armand). 

The modern peace movement, which bears a "general democratic" character and does not set itself the task of fighting capitalism, has thrown away, like unnecessary, rusty rubbish, the Leninist nail of the fight against the war and, consequently, is objectively an accomplice of imperialism in its striving to circumvent the socialist revolution. 

The program of the CPSU and the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the socialist revolution 

The next big and, perhaps, the most important and most difficult question to dwell on when analyzing the Program of the CPSU - this is the complete expression of the "theoretical carelessness" of Khrushchev and his like-minded people - this is the question of the socialist revolution, that is, the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of forms of transition of various countries to socialism. 

Strictly speaking, the question of the revolution has long been resolved by the classics of Marxism-Leninism and backed up by the experience of the historical development of society. And it would not be worthwhile to turn to it again if this question did not arise before us in connection with the new Program of the CPSU and with those disagreements on it that have been revealed with such sharpness in the world communist movement. 

This issue is also very important from the point of view of preventing a world thermonuclear war. 

In the previous sections of the letter, I have already said that the new Program of the CPSU asserts that under the present concrete historical conditions it is not at all necessary, as Lenin taught, to get rid of wars, to overthrow capitalism - it can be forced into an agreement on the renunciation of war. 

Of course, the Program of the CPSU does not directly reject the revolution as a means of preventing wars, but it considers revolution not the only means for this, as Lenin taught, but one of the means of preventing war, which cannot be resorted to now, since there are no appropriate methods for this in the developed capitalist countries. conditions. 

To the best of my ability and capacity, I tried to understand the reality and feasibility of one of the means (according to the Program of the CPSU) to prevent a new world war - the policy of peaceful coexistence - and came to the conclusion that such an idea not only fundamentally contradicts Marxism-Leninism, but also objectively serves not preventing war, but bringing it closer. 

As regards the problem of the socialist revolution, the Program of the CPSU interprets the revolution as follows: 

“In the new historical situation, the working class of many countries, even before the overthrow of capitalism, can impose on the bourgeoisie the implementation of such measures, which, going beyond the framework of ordinary reforms, are of vital importance both for the working class and for the majority of the nation. By uniting broad sections of the working people, the working class can force the ruling circles to stop preparing a new war, to use the economy for peaceful purposes, can beat off the offensive of fascist reaction, achieve a national peace program, national independence, democratic rights, and a certain improvement in the living conditions of the people. 

The working class directs its main blow against the capitalist monopolies. All the main strata of the nation are vitally interested in the elimination of the omnipotence of the monopolies. 

This makes it possible to unite all democratic movements that oppose the oppression of the financial oligarchy into one powerful anti-monopoly stream.

 The proletariat advances a program of struggle against the omnipotence of the monopolies, taking into account not only today's but also tomorrow's interests of its allies. It stands for broad nationalization on terms most advantageous to the people, for the control of parliament, trade unions and other democratic and representative organizations over the nationalized sectors, over the entire economic activity of the state. 

It supports the demands of the peasantry for radical agrarian reforms. 

The proletariat, together with other sections of the people, is waging a resolute struggle for broad democracy... In this struggle, the alliance of the working class with all working people is forged... 

The proletarian revolution in each country, being a part of the world socialist revolution, is carried out by the working class, the masses of the people of that country. Revolution does not come by order. It cannot be imposed on the people from outside. It arises as a result of the profound internal and international contradictions of capitalism... 

The working class and its vanguard, the Marxist-Leninist parties, prefer to carry out the transfer of power from the hands of the bourgeoisie to the hands of the proletariat by peaceful means, without civil war. Relying on the majority of the people and resolutely rebuffing the opportunist elements, unable to renounce the policy of conciliation with the landlords and capitalists, the working class has the opportunity to defeat the reactionary anti-popular forces, to win a solid majority in parliament, to turn it from an instrument serving the class interests of the bourgeoisie into an instrument, serving the working people, develop an extra-parliamentary broad mass struggle, break the resistance of the reactionary forces and create the necessary conditions for the peaceful implementation of the socialist revolution. All this will be possible only through a broad, continuous development of the class struggle of the workers.

In conditions where the exploiting classes resort to violence against the peoples, it is necessary to bear in mind the possibility of a non-peaceful transition to socialism. Leninism teaches, and historical experience confirms, that the ruling classes do not voluntarily yield to power. The degree of bitterness and the form of the class struggle under these conditions will depend not so much on the proletariat as on the strength of the resistance of the reactionary circles to the will of the overwhelming majority of the people, on the use of violence by these circles at one stage or another of the struggle for socialism" (pp. 38, 40 - 41) . 

Here is the entire section of the Program of the CPSU devoted to the question under consideration. And it seems to me that if we look a little more closely at the order of presenting the material on this question given by the Program, we will pay attention to the fact that the Program of the CPSU itself divides this section, as it were, into three parts. 

In the first part of this section, the Program of the CPSU assures us that peace, national independence, the use of the economy for peaceful purposes, the expansion of democratic rights, and a "known" further improvement in living conditions in many capitalist countries can be achieved without overthrowing the power of capital, but only by fighting with his omnipotence. 

In the second part of the section, the Program of the CPSU assures us that if we are to speak of a revolution, we should first of all speak of a peaceful revolution, for which all the conditions are ripe in many capitalist countries, of a revolution by parliamentary means, by "democratic" means, without civil war. 

And, finally, in the third part of its section devoted to the question of the socialist revolution, the Program of the CPSU very briefly, as if in passing, says that we have in mind the "possibility" of a non-peaceful transfer of power from the hands of the bourgeoisie to the hands of the working class. 

Here again one cannot fail to recall Khrushchev's statement that the Soviet people are still living worse than the workers of the developed capitalist countries, even worse than they lived before the revolution. Let us recall the thesis of the Program of the CPSU about the revolutionary influence of example on the course of the world revolutionary process, let us recall Khrushchev’s statements that peaceful economic competition also benefits the working people of the capitalist countries, forcing the ruling classes to make concessions in the field of raising the material standard of living of the working people - let us recall all these and statements and statements similar to them, and compare them with the statement of the Program of the CPSU that the working class of many capitalist countries, the working class, which, in our own words, lives better than we, can, without overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie, through a general democratic struggle for " unusual reforms" 

What is the outcome of this comparison? And it turns out that you cannot hurry with the revolution. Why is that? Why rise up for a revolution, and even, God forbid, shed your blood in it, if for the time being socialism does not give the worker those material benefits that he achieved under capitalism, if he can achieve a further improvement in his position by democratic struggle for the usual ordinary and unusual reforms? 

Refrain from revolution, fight for "unusual" reforms, do not shed your blood in vain - wait until communism wins in the Soviet Union and for all working people, including the petty bourgeoisie (or, as the Program of the CPSU says, the middle urban strata), it becomes clear that communism is good, it's better than capitalism. When this becomes clear to the working people, that is, to the overwhelming majority of the nation, as the Program of the CPSU states, then, undoubtedly, the communist and workers' parties will have every opportunity to obtain a lasting majority in parliament, for a peaceful and relatively painless transfer of power from the hands of the bourgeoisie to the hands of the working class. . 

Such is the formulation of the question of the socialist revolution given by the Program of the CPSU. 

It is said that there is nothing anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist in such a formulation of the question, because Marxism-Leninism did not and does not connect the onset of the revolution with any specific date, that, as the Program of the CPSU correctly says, "revolution does not come to order", "that it cannot be imposed from outside" that "it arises as a result of deep internal and external contradictions of imperialism". 

It is said that there is nothing anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist in the very call to "wait for our example", because, firstly, this expectation does not mean that passive waiting is obligatory, and, secondly, it will allow, after some time, when the appropriate conditions for this will come, to realize world revolution peaceful, i.e. the most acceptable way for the peoples. 

I agree that Marxism-Leninism does not tie the onset of the revolution to any specific date, I agree that there is nothing anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist in the desire to carry out the revolution in a peaceful way, without civil war. But one cannot help but dwell on the very possibility of a PEACEFUL implementation socialist revolution and on the paths propagated for this by the Program of the CPSU. 

We affirm that in the new historical situation the possibilities for a peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism have increased. 

All supporters and defenders of this assertion remember and write that Marx, Engels and Lenin admitted the possibility of a peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism. But for some reason they forget about those specific conditions under which, in each specific country, the classics of Marxism-Leninism allowed for this very possibility. It seems to me that there is no need to refer to quotations in order to show that under these specific conditions the classics of Marxism-Leninism understood the absence of militarism and bureaucratization of state power in any given country. 

In the presence of militarism and bureaucratization of the state apparatus in a given country, according to Marx, Engels, Lenin, there can be no question of the possibility of a peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism. V. I. Lenin posed this question without any appeal: 

“In that particular situation, which throughout the world, and most of all in the most advanced, powerful countries ... has been created by militarism, imperialism ... any assumption of the thought of a peaceful, reformist transition to socialism, of the peaceful subordination of capitalists to the will of the majority, is not only extreme petty-bourgeois stupidity, but also a direct deception of the workers, embellishment of wage capitalist slavery, concealment of the truth" (Theses on the main tasks of the Second Congress of the Comintern). 

In connection with the question of the peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism, I cannot fail to mention a large article in the journal "Problems of Peace and Socialism" (PTG 8, 1964) by member of the Politburo of the CEPT Central Committee K. Hager, in which, in my opinion, with the greatest all the arguments of supporters and defenders of the thesis of a peaceful transition are fully disclosed. K. Hager writes: 

“With whatever sense of responsibility the communists may prepare themselves and the working class for the non-peaceful path as a possible necessity, nevertheless now, more than ever before, they are looking for every opportunity to follow the peaceful path of the revolution, since today for there exist incomparably more favorable conditions than before (especially in the developed capitalist countries). 

Absolutely the opposite of Lenin! K. Hager writes: 

"Even Marx and Engels were supporters of the peaceful path of the revolution wherever it was possible. Even in the "Principles of Communism" (1847), F. Engels, to the question of whether it is possible to eliminate private ownership of the means of production by peaceful means, unequivocally answered: "It is possible one would wish it to be so, and the Communists, of course, would be the last to object to this. 

And here is how V. I. Lenin assessed these same words of Engels:  

“Engels is careful enough not to tie his hands. He admits that in countries with a republic or with very great freedom one can imagine (only “imagine”!) peaceful development to socialism..." (State and Revolution). 

How magnificent is this Leninist remark - just "imagine", isn't it? 

K. Hager, defending the possibility of a peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism, like all supporters of this thesis, by the way, tries to rely on historical experience. And he does it very awkwardly: 

“Wherever possible, the communists have always tried to follow the peaceful path of the revolution or have followed it. It is known that the revolutionary seizure of power by the Paris Communards was carried out peacefully, almost without a single drop of blood. Not a single bourgeois revolution can boast of the fact that so few human casualties were brought to it, as was the case when the Bolsheviks took power in the October days of 1917. A similar situation occurred at the beginning of the proletarian revolution in Hungary in 1919. But in all these cases, the bourgeoisie responded with armed resistance and white terror only after that, and with full right, did the proletariat use all means to protect and secure the revolution and continue it further. 

Blimey! This is "revolutionary"! - only after the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie tries to kill the revolution by armed force and terror, only after that does the proletariat, it turns out, have the right to respond to it in kind. And here is what V. I. Lenin said: 

“Great revolutions, even when they began peacefully ... ended in furious wars, which were opened by the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. It cannot be otherwise, if you look at this question from the point of view of the class struggle, and not that petty-bourgeois phrase-mongering about freedom, equality, labor democracy and the will of the majority... There can be no peaceful development towards socialism." 

As evidence of the possibility of a peaceful transfer of power from the hands of the bourgeoisie to the hands of the working class, Comrade K. Hager, like all other supporters of a peaceful revolution, by the way, refers to the example of the countries of people's democracy. He's writing: 

"Today, on the basis of the new alignment of forces in the world, the possibilities for a peaceful solution of political and social contradictions on a national and international scale have increased incomparably. This is already evidenced by the peaceful course of the development of the socialist revolution in a number of European countries of people's democracy." 

The question is whether it is appropriate for Marxist-Leninists to resort to this kind of "evidence” because someone else, and they should have been well aware that the revolution in the European countries of people's democracy at the beginning of its occurrence had a national liberation anti-fascist character, and when the transition from that to the socialist revolution directly and indirectly relied on the armed forces of the Soviet army. 

History has given us no examples of a peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism. On the other hand, she gave us many new examples confirming the correctness of Lenin's words.

The main argument of the theoreticians and defenders of the thesis of the Program of the CPSU about the possibility of a peaceful transfer of power from the bourgeoisie to the working class is the same that they also use to prove the possibility of peaceful coexistence of states with opposite social systems - a new historical situation, only here we are not talking about external, as in the theory of peaceful coexistence, but on the internal historical situation. 

Let us recall once again that historical situation, in the analysis of which V. I. Lenin at one time categorically rejected the possibility of a peaceful transfer of power from the hands of the bourgeoisie to the hands of the working class - militarism, the bureaucratization of state power, the state apparatus, or, in short, imperialism, unthinkable without militarism, without turning the state apparatus "into an office for managing the affairs of monopolies." 

Does this situation still exist or has it really changed? And if it has changed, in what direction? 

Here is the evidence of the CPSU Program itself. 

"State-monopoly capitalism combines the power of the monopolies with the power of the state into a single mechanism for the purpose of enriching the monopolies, suppressing the labor movement...salvation of the capitalist system ...... State-monopoly capitalism strengthens militarism in an unheard of way. The imperialist states maintain huge armed forces in peacetime... 

Imperialist states are turning into militaristic, military-police states: militarization permeates the life of bourgeois society. ... The financial oligarchy is resorting to the establishment of a fascist regime, relying on the army, police, gendarmerie as the last anchor of salvation from the wrath of the people ... "(Program of the CPSU, pp. 25 - 35. Subm. - GM). 

The program of the CPSU seeks to convince us that the militarization and bureaucratization of bourgeois social life has increased in an unheard of way, and at the same time it advocates a peaceful transition of power. 

Doesn’t something fit, ends don’t match  in the Program of the CPSU. 

Yes, indeed, the situation has changed significantly compared to the one that was under V. I. Lenin. And it has changed not in the direction of increasing the possibility of a peaceful revolution, but on the contrary, in the direction of an even sharper DECREASE in such a possibility. And as soon as this is so, and that it is so, we are convinced by the Program of the CPSU itself, V. I. Lenin’s indication that 

“... a socialist or anarchist who has not gone mad, or whatever you want to call it, cannot decide to say before any meeting that socialism can be reached without a civil war. You can review the entire literature of all the somewhat responsible socialist parties, factions, and groups, and you will not find such an absurdity that someday socialism can come otherwise than through a civil war and that the landowners and capitalists will voluntarily cede their privileges. This is naivety bordering on stupidity "(The final word on the fight against hunger at the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, Moscow Council and trade unions). 

Perhaps, under the new historical situation, the theorists, and defenders of the CPSU Program do not mean the Leninist conditions for the possibility of a peaceful revolution, but, as the Program says, "the successes of the USSR and the entire world socialist system, the deepening crisis of world capitalism, the growth of the influence of communist parties, the ideological collapse of reformism "? 

If this is so, then, in my opinion, these circumstances do not in the least diminish the role and significance of the Leninist conditions for the possibility of effecting a peaceful transfer of power from the hands of the bourgeoisie to the hands of the working class. Vice versa. The deepening crisis of world capitalism, the growing influence of the communist parties on the masses, the ideological collapse of reformism, TOGETHER with the growth of militarization and bureaucratization, TOGETHER with the growth of reaction along all lines - in the Marxist, in the Leninist way - INEVITABLY leads to an even sharper and fiercer class struggle, to complete impossibility of a peaceful transition of power. 

The question is curious - how does the Program of the CPSU imagine the peaceful revolution itself? How will it happen?

"By relying on the majority of the people and resolutely rebuffing the opportunist elements who are unable to renounce the policy of conciliation with the landowners and capitalists, the working class has the opportunity to defeat the reactionary forces, win a solid majority in parliament, turn it from an instrument serving the class interests of the bourgeoisie into an instrument of serving the working people, develop an extra-parliamentary broad mass struggle, break the resistance of the reactionary forces and create the necessary conditions for the peaceful implementation of the socialist revolution. 

The program of the CPSU explains that 

"All this will be possible only through a broad, uninterrupted development of the class struggle of the workers, peasant masses, and middle urban strata against big monopoly capital, against reaction, for profound social reforms, for peace and socialism." 

So, the scheme of a peaceful revolution is evident. Now let's try to fill it with real content. 

According to the Program of the CPSU, the main elements of a peaceful revolution are: 1) a statement of support from the majority of the people; 2) victory in the election campaign and obtaining a strong majority in parliament; 3) the development of an extra-parliamentary "broad mass struggle for peace, against big monopoly capital, for profound social reforms, for socialism." 

Let us consider these main stages of the peaceful revolution. 

Lenin's proposition that the sympathy and support of the majority of the working people is necessary for the victory of the revolution is well known and indisputable. 

M. A. Suslov in his report at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU 14/11-1964 said: 

“The revolution is the work of the popular masses, led by the proletariat and its revolutionary vanguard. It is quite clear that this does not mean at all that Marxist-Leninists are obliged to wait passively until a favorable situation develops. The experience of the CPSU shows that even a small, hardened party, enjoying the support of the proletarians and the advanced part of the peasantry, is capable of leading the revolution, leading the people. But for this it is necessary, as V.I. the lower classes "do not want to live in the old way." 

I think this quote is worth reading. 

From the perfectly correct statement that Marxist-Leninists are not obliged to wait until a favorable situation for the revolution develops, Suslov immediately makes a voluntary or involuntary reservation that nullifies this correct statement - the reservation that this favorable situation is still not enough - it is necessary, to create a revolutionary situation in the country. 

According to the scheme [of the Program] of the CPSU, it appears that the support by the proletariat and the advanced part of the peasantry of a party advocating under the slogans of a socialist revolution is not yet a favorable situation, not a revolutionary situation. 

Indeed, V. I. Lenin said that "Marxism has always denied pushing revolutions that are brewing as the sharpness of class contradictions develops." But in Suslov's interpretation, Lenin's words take on a different meaning. It literally follows from the quoted statement of M. A. Suslov that although Marxist-Leninists are not obliged to passively wait until a favorable situation develops, at the same time they cannot act actively until the revolutionary situation matures. 

According to the [Program] scheme of the CPSU, it turns out to be some kind of vicious circle - the communists are not obliged to passively wait, but they cannot actively act either. Where is the way out of this situation? 

Let us turn to V. I. Lenin, to that work of his, from which M. A. Suslov took the phrases "upper" and "lower". 

weakens the government and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to quickly overthrow it" ("Children's disease of leftism in communism"). 

Does V. I. Lenin have an answer to our question? There is. And it consists in just one word - "achieve!" Lenin's pointing out that for the success of the revolution in each specific country, it is necessary to have a certain revolutionary situation that arises as a result of the development of internal and external contradictions of imperialism in this country, contradictions, the most important component of which is precisely the contradictions between the exploited and the exploiters, between revolution and reaction—it should be a call to action for every Marxist-Leninist—not to oppose the “favorable situation” of the revolutionary situation, but to AVOID that situation by active revolutionary struggle, that is, to achieve both the support and sympathy of the proletariat and the "Couldn't manage in the old way. 

One condition follows from the other. Having managed to achieve, having managed to win support for these slogans and ideas by the proletariat with the help of the slogans and ideas of the socialist revolution, and stop before the "tops" - is this Marxism-Leninism?! 

According to V. I. Lenin, the absence of a revolutionary situation in a particular country does not and cannot mean at all that in such a case there is no need for direct propaganda of the ideas and slogans of the socialist revolution. 

“Yes, even if the situation were non-revolutionary, the entire history of the Bolshevik Party proves that the Second International is mistaken and takes great responsibility on itself, if in fact it does not want and cannot organize revolutionary propaganda and agitation even in a non-revolutionary situation. and the difference between socialists and communists is that we do not want to do this (i.e., take this blame on ourselves. - GM)" (Second Congress of the Comintern. Theses on the conditions for admission). 

“The present situation in Europe is exactly the same: it would be senseless to call for an “immediate” assault. But it would be a disgrace to call yourself a Social Democrat and not advise the workers to break with the opportunists and do everything possible to strengthen, deepen, expand, and sharpen the beginning revolutionary ferment and demonstrations. Revolution never falls completely ready from the sky, and at the beginning of revolutionary ferment, no one ever knows whether and when it will lead to a "real", to a "genuine" revolution" (Principal Provisions on the Question of War). 

“Recognizing the dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean: no matter what happens, launch an assault, an uprising at any moment. This is nonsense. For a successful uprising, a long, skillful, stubborn preparation is needed, worthy of great sacrifices... To recognize the dictatorship of the proletariat means: to radically remake the day-to-day work of the party, to go down to those millions of workers, laborers and peasants who cannot be saved from the calamities of capitalism and wars without overthrowing the bourgeoisie. this is what the dictatorship of the proletariat is" (Notes of a Publicist, 1920). 

I cannot but digress from the topic of this section and return for a second to the problem of peaceful coexistence. 

How revolutionary is Lenin's thought! To tell the masses, tens of millions, that without the overthrow of the bourgeoisie they cannot be saved from the calamities of capitalism and war! And how opposite it is to the current concept of the peaceful coexistence of states with different socio-economic systems. 

So, from the point of view of Marxism-Leninism, even the absence of a revolutionary situation in a particular country does not mean that the Communists can refuse or refrain from direct agitation and propaganda among the masses of the ideas and slogans of the socialist revolution in favor of "small concessions, hesitation, indecision, evasiveness, evasions and omissions", in favor of the struggle for "unusual" reforms. 

In the materials on the Program of the CPSU, a view is taken of the revolution as a one-time act, which necessarily needs the sympathy and support of the majority of working people for the very possibility of its implementation to arise, i.e. in the sympathy and support of the majority of the population. Such a position does not in any way correspond to either the theory or the practice of Marxism-Leninism. V. I. Lenin taught: 

“The opportunist gentlemen  “teach” the people, in mockery of the teachings of Marx, that the proletariat must first win a majority through universal suffrage, then, on the basis of such a majority, obtain state power, and only then, on this basis ... organize socialism. And we say, on the basis of the teachings of Marx: the proletariat must first overthrow the bourgeoisie and win state power for itself, and then use this state power, i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat, as an instrument of its class in order to win the sympathy of the majority of the working people "(Elections to the Constituent Assembly and the dictatorship of the proletariat). 

“In fact, only after the vanguard of the proletariat, supported by all this, the only revolutionary class, or the majority of it, overthrows the exploiters, crushes them, frees the exploited from their slave position, improves their living conditions at the expense of the expropriated capitalists, only after that and in the very course of the acute class struggle enlightenment, education, organization of the broadest and most exploited masses around the proletariat, under its influence and leadership, is feasible" (Second Congress of the Comintern. Theses on the main tasks). 

“The main source of misunderstanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat on the part of the ‘socialists’ lies in their misunderstanding that state power in the hands of one class, the proletariat, can and must become an instrument for winning the non-proletarian working masses over to the side of the proletariat, an instrument for wrestling these masses from the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois parties. "(vol. 30, p. 239). 

V. I. Lenin speaks out, as always, exactly, and definitely: the proletariat must first overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize state power, and only then, using this power as an instrument of its domination, win the sympathy and support of the majority of the working people. 

This is understandable. Revolution is not a one-time act. And the initial stage of the revolution - a revolutionary uprising, a revolutionary seizure of power, the primary, but not the main task of the revolution - can be carried out with relatively small forces. The most complex and difficult task of the revolution is to retain and consolidate the seized state power. 

"For victory, you must have the sympathy of the masses. An absolute majority is not always necessary; but to win, to retain power, you need the sympathy not only of the majority of the working class ... but also of the majority of the exploited and working people, the rural population" (III Congress of the Comintern. Speech in defense of tactics ). 

If the task of a revolutionary uprising—the seizure of state power—can be carried out with the sympathy and support of the working class as the most revolutionary class in society, or with the support and sympathy of its conscious majority, and not at all with the support and sympathy of the majority of working people, as the Program of the CPSU interprets, then it is quite natural that the task of retaining, winning back, and strengthening the finally seized state power cannot be solved without the sympathy and support of the majority of the population of this particular country. 

Theorists and defenders of the Program of the CPSU deliberately confuse this issue, reduce its solution to the fact that only when the communists will be supported by the majority of the population of a given country, that is, only when they have almost 100% confidence in the victory of the revolution, only then will they "risk" the revolution. 

Needless to say, such a formulation of the question of acquiring the sympathy and support of the majority has nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism? Recall the following statement by Khrushchev, and I think you will agree with me: 

"... Which capitalist country, the working class of which country, which party wants to start a revolutionary uprising now? If the working class of any of the countries rises to such a struggle, we will welcome it and say: on the way, if you are sure that it is, the uprising will end with your victory!” (Highlighted by me. - GM) (Speech at a rally of Soviet-German friendship 13/U-64). 

The program of the CPSU considers the beginning of the revolution not a revolutionary uprising to seize state power, but victory in the electoral struggle, obtaining a solid majority in parliament. And it is clear that obtaining a "strong majority" in parliament can only be ensured by first winning the support and sympathy of the majority of the population of a particular country. I will not now touch on the question of whether it is possible, not theoretically, but practically, whether it is possible to obtain a stable parliamentary revolutionary majority under the domination of capital in a given country. 

Let us turn to the question of what ways, methods, slogans, and ideas communists must win the sympathy and support of the majority of the population. How do we want to win him over to the side of socialism? What tactics should communists follow in order to win over to our side from the bourgeoisie and its accomplices in the working-class and democratic movement, the opportunists, and revisionists, that still fairly significant section of the workers who are for the time being following the bourgeois parties? 

According to the theorists and followers of the CPSU Program, and from the Program itself, it follows that these slogans and ideas, ways and methods are: 

1) The struggle for peace as a struggle for a policy of peaceful coexistence; 

2) "A general democratic struggle against the omnipotence of the monopolies", which consists in "broad nationalization on terms most favorable to the people, for the control of parliament, trade unions and other representative bodies over nationalized enterprises, overall economic activity of the state", in support of the demand "of the peasantry to carry out radical agrarian reforms"; 

3) The unity of all social forces opposed to war, against the policy of monopolies, for democracy and socialism. 

Quite a lot has been said about the struggle for peace, which for theorists and followers of the CPSU Program is tantamount to a struggle for a policy of peaceful coexistence. 

Here, in my opinion, it should only be emphasized once again that the Program of the CPSU conceives a policy of peaceful coexistence, the cornerstone of which is an agreement between the socialist and imperialist states on the renunciation of war, which is really feasible without a struggle to overthrow the power of capital. 

It is clear that such a slogan and such an idea can certainly win the sympathy and support not only of the majority of bourgeois parties, but even of those sober representatives of monopoly capital who, under cover of high-profile phrases about peace, are working out aggressive military plans directed against socialism. 

As for the "general democratic" struggle against the omnipotence of the monopolies, there is much to dwell on here. 

The program of the CPSU introduces a new term into the dictionary of Marxism-Leninism - "omnipotence". It seems to be a short word, but its application in Marxist-Leninist theory fundamentally changes the very meaning of those of its provisions into which the Program of the CPSU introduces this new term. 

"The general democratic struggle against the omnipotence of the monopolies..." 

Doesn't such a formulation of the question smack of a kind of half-heartedness, narrow-mindedness? It smells and it's great. 

An examination of the Program of the CPSU leads to the conclusion that this first impression is by no means accidental, for everywhere it speaks of big monopolies, bigwigs, financial oligarchy, and so on. etc. 

Why? 

Yes, because the statements about the unity of all the main sections of the nation, about the "general democratic" struggle can be justified to some extent only by such a formulation of the question - the struggle of all sections of the people against the omnipotence of the monopolies. 

One has only to put the question deeper, in a Marxist way—not about the abolition of the omnipotence of the monopolies, but about the abolition of their power, about the abolition of private ownership of the means of production—and the whole shaky foundation of the affirmation of a general democratic struggle and the unity of all sections of the nation collapses like a house of cards. 

It is collapsing because none of the Marxist-Leninists can come up with such an absurd idea, from the point of view of the class struggle, that for the elimination of the power of monopolies, for the elimination of the power of capital, for the elimination of private ownership of the means of production, which constitutes the basis, the root cause of the power of capital , the power of the monopolies - it is possible and necessary to fight in a "general democratic", that is, non-revolutionary, that is, reformist, way. 

It is clear that such a slogan and such an idea can win the support and sympathy of the majority of the bourgeois parties, the majority of representatives not only of the petty bourgeoisie, but also of the middle bourgeoisie, who dream of limiting the omnipotence of the big monopolies so that they do not interfere with their own profit ... 

The Program of the CPSU and its theoreticians and supporters devote much space to the problem of the struggle for the so-called "unusual" reforms. What is their uniqueness? 

The answer to this question must be sought in the program documents of the Western European communist and workers' parties. An analysis of these documents shows that it was from them that the very concept of "unusual" reforms migrated to the Program of the CPSU. 

In his "Memorandum" P. Togliatti wrote: 

“Entirely new problems arise in the system of state-monopoly capitalism, which the ruling classes are no longer able to solve in traditional ways. In particular, today in the largest countries the question of centralizing the management of the economy arises, which they are trying to solve with the help of programming from above, in the interests of large monopolies and through state intervention ... It is obvious that the workers' and democratic movement cannot remain indifferent to this issue. We need to fight in this area as well. 

This requires the development and coordination of the immediate demands of the working class and proposals for the reform of the economic structure (nationalization, agrarian reform, etc.), combining them into a general plan for economic development, which must be opposed to capitalist programming. Of course, it will not yet be a socialist plan, because there are no conditions for this. However, this is a new form and a new means of struggle for moving forward towards socialism. 

In the journal "Problems of Peace and Socialism" 8 for 1964), K. Renard, a member of the Central Committee of the Belgian Communist Party, said: 

“Indeed, the question of structural reform directly raises the question of power... It is clear today that the long overdue economic structural reforms demanded by the working people cannot be carried out without stronger united action than before, and without liquidation as a result of these actions political privileges of the capitalist monopolies, that is, without a substantial democratization of the system. 

From these statements, you can get an idea of what is the so-called structural reform and how it is unusual, how it differs from ordinary reforms. 

Structural reform is a reform that, firstly, combines into one common program previously disparate "demands and proposals" of the working class, for example, such as nationalization, agrarian reform, etc., and, secondly, requires control of the parliament, trade unions and other representative bodies over the nationalized industries, over the entire economic activity of the bourgeois state. 

None of the Marxist-Leninists has so far denied that the demands of nationalization, agrarian reform, etc. -reformist demands. V. I. Lenin spoke about this more than once. 

Requirements for the control of parliament, trade unions, etc. democratic organizations are also far from new demands, which have been put forward more than once by international social democracy. Remember what Lenin wrote about such control: 

"Control without power is the emptiest phrase... In order to control, one must have power. If this is incomprehensible to the broad masses... one must have the patience to explain it to them, but in no case tell them a lie. And if I obscure it the main condition for control is that I tell lies and play into the hands of the capitalists and imperialists... Control without power is a petty-bourgeois phrase..." (T. 24, p. 201). 

If we talk about something unusual that has now been introduced into these, in general, old, reformist slogans, it is the unification of these hitherto disparate reforms into one common platform-program. 

One cannot but agree with P. Togliatti himself when he writes about such a program as a non-socialist program. This is true. But along with this, I can in no way discern in this program either a “new form” or a “new means of struggle for moving forward towards socialism” - I can’t, because none of the newly-minted Marxist theoreticians anywhere explains: 

1) What kind of nationalization are we talking about when we talk about structural reforms? About the nationalization of all or most of the monopolies, or the nationalization of only the big monopolies? 

2) What kind of economic activity of the bourgeois state are we talking about? About the current tax or the proposed planning one? 

3) What kind of parliament are we talking about? The current bourgeois or imaginary, expressing the interests of the entire people? 

4) What kind of political privileges of the monopolies are we talking about, and by what active actions can we achieve the elimination of these privileges and the "substantial democratization of the system"? 

5) And what is meant by "substantial democratization of the system"? 

6) And finally, what does it mean to say that “in reality, the question of structural reform directly raises the question of power”? 

Does all this mean that the communist parties of Western Europe are embarrassed to directly raise the question of power before the working people, because, as Togliatti notes, "there are no conditions for this", but they can raise the question of structural reforms, since these reforms "actually raise the question of authorities"?! 

It is not clear whom some of the communist parties of Europe and America are trying to confuse or outwit - either themselves, or the ruling classes, or the working people themselves - demanding reform, raising the question of power, but not demanding power? .. 

VI Lenin said that "no redistribution of the land and no change in the state towards democratization will yet eliminate the domination of capital, the domination of the bourgeois system" (vol. 20, p. 211). 

"Capitalism and imperialism cannot be overthrown by any 'ideal' democratic transformations, but only by an economic revolution..." (vol. 23, p. 13). 

V. I. Lenin taught that "... the socialists do not give up the struggle for reforms. They must, for example, now vote in bourgeois parliaments for all sorts of, even small, improvements in the condition of the masses, etc. But a simple bourgeois deception is the preaching of reforms to solve problems that history and the actual state of affairs have raised in a revolutionary way..." (Proposal of the Central Committee of the RSDLP of the Second Socialist Conference). 

The already mentioned member of the Central Committee of the SED K. Hager, joining a whole choir of prominent European figures of the labor movement, assures us that "a revolution (especially a peaceful one) can also include evolutionary moments as one of the ways of its development. It turns out that it is possible to use reforms in the interests of leading the masses to the revolution, to turn the reforms into one of the forms for the development of the revolution itself. 

It is impossible not to recall V. I. Lenin and his answer to Comrade Hager and others - 

“The “principled conciliators” will try to present a falsification of Marxism in the spirit, for example, of such an argument that reforms do not exclude revolution ... that reforms are possible “along with the revolutionary movement, as one of the moments in the development of this movement,” etc., etc.... 

This would be a falsification of Marxism. Of course, reforms do not exclude revolution. This, however, is not the point now, but that the revolutionaries should not exclude themselves before the reformists, that is, that the socialists should not substitute reformist work for their revolutionary work" ("Bourgeois Pacifism and Socialist Pacifism"). 

It is impossible not to admire the foresight of Lenin. 

If we, speaking of structural reforms as reforms that raise the question of power, are embarrassed to openly call on the working people who demand these reforms to a direct struggle for power, then we, it seems to me, are becoming like the comrade about whom V.I. Lenin wrote as early as 1916: 

"... Junius, firstly, did not completely free herself from the" environment "of German, even left-wing Social Democrats, who are afraid of a split, afraid to finish talking revolutionary slogans. This is an erroneous fear ... Secondly, Junius wanted, apparently, to put into practice something in the nature of the Menshevik, sad memory, "theory of stages", she wanted to start carrying out the revolutionary program from its "most convenient," "popular," end acceptable to the petty bourgeoisie. Something like a plan to "outwit history," outwit the philistines... Once adopted, such a program would itself lead, they say, to the next stage: the socialist revolution. 

Probably, such reasoning consciously or semi-consciously determined Junius's tactics. Needless to say, they are erroneous" ("On the pamphlet of Junius")

As we have found out, winning the sympathy and support of the majority by the Program of the CPSU and its supporters is conceived primarily in winning this majority over to the side of the communist parties by fighting for peace, which does not require a struggle to overthrow the power of capital; the struggle for "a certain improvement in the conditions of existence", "for the democratization" of the existing system, which envisages the struggle for "unusual" reforms; the struggle for socialism, which provides for the struggle for a peaceful revolution, for a revolution without civil war, in which the electoral struggle and parliament are brought to the forefront of this peaceful revolution. 

Is there a need to turn to V. I. Lenin for help on the issue of parliament and the parliamentary struggle? 

His works in this direction are so numerous and well-known among all who consider themselves Marxists, that, it would seem, it is definitely not worth refreshing them again in the memory of individual forgetful people. 

But it seems to me that it would not be superfluous to remind these people of V. I. Lenin’s main idea that  

“forgetting that universal suffrage, as long as the property of the capitalists is preserved, is one of the instruments of the bourgeois state, means shamefully betraying the proletariat, passing over on the side of his class enemy, the bourgeoisie, to be a traitor and a renegade" (vol. 28, p. 410). 

“Only scoundrels or fools can think that the proletariat must first win a majority in voting held under the yoke of the bourgeoisie, under the yoke of wage slavery, and then must win power. This is the height of stupidity or hypocrisy, this is the replacement of the class struggle and revolution by voting under the old regime , under the old system" (vol. 30, p. 40). 

“The proletariat cannot win without winning the majority of the population over to its side. But to limit or condition this conquest by winning a majority of votes in elections under the rule of the bourgeoisie is an impenetrable stupidity or a simple swindle of the workers” (Vol. 30, p. 242). 

“We see what boundless theoretical absurdity, what stupidity is the current petty-bourgeois idea of ​​the transition to socialism through “democracy”... The prejudice inherited from the bourgeoisie about the absolute, non-class content of “democracy” is the basis of this error” (vol. 30, p. .96). 

V. I. Lenin was not shy in his expressions when he spoke of people preaching a peaceful, parliamentary, democratic transfer of power from the hands of the bourgeoisie to the hands of the working class. V. I. Lenin categorically rejected this path. He proceeded from an analysis of objective reality, from the fact that 

“The strength of the proletariat in any capitalist country is incomparably greater than the share of the proletariat in the total population. This is because the proletariat economically dominates the center and nerve of the entire economic system of capitalism, and also because the proletariat economically and politically expresses the real interests of the vast majority of the working people Therefore, the proletariat, even when it constitutes a minority of the population (or when the conscious and truly revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat constitutes a minority of the population), is capable of both overthrowing the bourgeoisie and then winning over to its side many allies from such a mass of semi-proletarians and petty bourgeois, which will never the rule of the proletariat will not speak out, it will not understand the conditions and tasks of this rule” (vol. 30, p. 250). 

We will not find anything new about the role of parliament in the modern revolutionary movement in the arguments of the theoreticians and defenders of the thesis about the parliamentary path of transition to socialism. They only say: 

“The goal is not to preserve the bourgeois parliament, but to use the parliamentary form and give the parliament a new, truly democratic, and then also proletarian content. This is possible only on the path of continuous extra-parliamentary struggle of the workers, peasant masses and urban middle strata , of all anti-monopoly forces against reaction, for radical reforms, revolutionary in their content, for peace and socialism" (K. Hager. Problems of Peace and Socialism, No. 8, 1964). 

And it all starts over... 

The logical continuation of the thesis of the Program of the CPSU about a peaceful transition to socialism by parliamentary means, by transforming parliament into an organ "expressing the interests of the people", for which transformation it is necessary to win a strong parliamentary majority, which, in turn, requires the support and sympathy of the majority of the nation, is the provision of the Program of the CPSU on "the unity of all democratic forces," on "the unity of all parties of the working class, irrespective of the ideological differences dividing these parties." 

Indeed, Marx, Engels, Lenin cared for and strove for the unity of all the forces of the working class. 

V. I. Lenin pointed out: 

"... The absolute necessity for ... the Communist Party to resort to maneuvering, conciliation, compromises with different groups of proletarians, with different parties of workers and small proprietors, follows with absolute necessity" ("Children's disease of leftism in communism"). 

But, Lenin emphasized, 

"the whole point is to be able to apply these tactics in order to INCREASE, and not lower, the GENERAL level of proletarian consciousness, revolutionary spirit, ability to fight and win" (ibid.). 

THE ALL POINT IS ON THE BASIS OF WHAT IDEOLOGY - MARXIST-LENIN OR BOURGEOIS-REFORMIST - THIS UNITY IS THOUGHT, ON WHAT TACTICS - EVOLUTIONARY OR REVOLUTIONARY - THIS UNITY IS CALCULATED, WHAT CHARACTER IT IS  

I have already said and must repeat again that the unity of all parties fighting for peace without overthrowing the power of capital, fighting for socialism through structural reforms and envisioning revolution as a peaceful transition of power, requiring first to win the support and sympathy of the vast majority of the nation, is quite imaginable, possible. 

But will such unity be the one to which Marx and Lenin called for the working class? Of course not. 

The fundamental contrast between the Marxist-Leninist position on questions of the unity of the workers' parties and the position of the majority of the current leaders of the Western European communist and workers' movement emerges especially clearly, especially clearly, from a comparison of their views with those of V. I. Lenin. 

"We must contribute to eliminating one of the few arguments of the Social Democrats against an alliance with the Communists - the argument that the Communists are striving for the violence of the minority over the majority" (Member of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany K. Hager. Problems of Peace and Socialism, No. 8 for 1964, p. 80). 

"The communist thesis about the diversity of the paths of transition to socialism and the possibility of this transition under certain conditions by peaceful means greatly favors the rapprochement between communists and socialists. This thesis breaks the old lie about the communists, who are supposedly principled "supporters of an active minority and instigators of violence" "( General Secretary of the French Communist Party V. Roche, ibid., p. 26). 

And here is V. I. Lenin: 

“In defining dictatorship, Kautsky did his best to hide from the reader the main feature of this concept, namely, revolutionary violence. And now the truth has come out: it is about the opposite of peaceful and violent revolutions. 

This is where the dog is buried. All the subterfuges, sophisms, fraudulent falsifications are exactly what Kautsky needs in order to dissuade violent revolution, in order to cover up his renunciation of it, his going over to the side of liberal labor politics, that is, to the side of the bourgeoisie. That's where the dog is buried. 

Kautsky must interpret dictatorship as a state of "domination," for then, revolutionary violence disappears, violent revolution disappears. The "state of domination" (hegemony) is the state in which there is any majority under  "democracy"! With such a fraudulent trick, the revolution safely disappears!" (vol. 28, pp. 317-318). 

"You cannot make the development of unity of action dependent on ideological differences" (V. Roche, ibid., p. 25). 

"The unity of all socialist forces in common action, so that they stand even above ideological differences" (General Secretary of the Italian Communist Party L. Longo, Problems of Peace and Socialism, No. 11 of 1964, p. 7). 

"Unity is a great cause and a great slogan! But the workers' cause needs the unity of the Marxists, and not the unity of the Marxists with the opponents and perverters of Marxism" (vol. 20, p. 211). 

"The mere thought of 'consigning to oblivion' fundamental disagreements is absurd and cannot occur to a sane person" ("Letter to a Comrade"). 

And here  is the international department of CPSU and French CP 

"In order to promote the success of the advance towards socialism by peaceful means, thanks to the close cooperation of both parties and all democratic and anti-monopoly forces, the 17th Congress of our party categorically rejected the idea of ​​the obligatory existence of one party to achieve socialism in France" (V. Rocher. Problems of Peace and Socialism, No. 8, 1964, p. 27). 

"The stumbling block between communists and socialists was the question of the force representing the working class in the struggle for the victory of the socialist revolution and in the construction of socialism. Usually the position of the communists on this issue was distorted, and until now it is not always correctly understood by the social democrats. The communists are credited with striving to "excommunicate" all other parties from participating in the construction of a new society... Communists are not principled supporters of the concept of a "single party" (Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU BN Ponomarev. Ibid., p. 26). 

"The widely held opinion ... that socialism means the domination of one party, namely the communist  one, owes its origin to a special historical development in the first socialist country - in the Soviet Union. It has found such wide circulation that it has penetrated deeply into the masses and is so tenacious because for some time it was even supported by the communist parties, which often understood the dictatorship of the proletariat - as opposed to bourgeois democracy - only as the domination of one party. This is a simplified, primitive position of vulgarizing Marxism "(Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Austria Furnberg. Problems of Peace and Socialism, No. 11, 1964, p. 25). 

And here is V. I. Lenin: 

“When we are reproached for the dictatorship of one party and proposed, as you have heard, a united socialist front, we say: 

"Yes, the dictatorship of one party! We stand on it and cannot leave this soil" (vol. 29, p. 497). 

"In order to split the bourgeois bloc, isolate big capital, create a new ruling bloc capable of replacing the old ruling classes and opening the way to socialism, a strategy is needed that meets the specific conditions of each country" (Member of the Presidium of the Central Control Commission of the Italian Communist Party V. Gerratana. Problems of Peace and Socialism , No. 8, 1964, p. 87). 

And here is V. I. Lenin: 

"In a capitalist society, when it develops, holds firm or when it perishes, it doesn't matter - there can be only one of two powers: either the power of the capitalists, or the power of the proletariat. Every average power is a dream, every attempt to organize something in the middle leads to the fact that people, even with complete sincerity, slide one way or the other" (vol. 29, p. 498). 

“The main thing that socialists do not understand, and what constitutes their theoretical short-sightedness, their captivity to bourgeois prejudices and their political betrayal of the proletariat, is that in capitalist society, with any serious aggravation of the class struggle underlying it, there can be no nothing in between, except the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Every dream of something else is the reactionary lamentation of the petty bourgeois" (vol. 28, p. 441). 

"In the European West (unlike the Asian, i.e. the barbarian East, where this was not the case. - GM) the socialist solution ... must not only provide bread and work, but also be able to guarantee (?!) a high rate development of production; to carry out economic planning in which the initiative of everyone would find a place and be stimulated; to lead society, guaranteeing (?!) a wide system of autonomy and political freedoms (?!); to promote the development of searches in the field of culture and the constant comparison of ideas (?!) Only if we act now in this direction and with this perspective will we be able to win over and unite the majority of the working class and people" (V. Jerratana, Problems of Peace and Socialism, No. 8, 1964, p. 87). 

"We constantly say... that the revolution requires sacrifice. There are comrades who argue in their propaganda as follows: we are ready to make a revolution, but it should not be too hard... I must declare that such agitation is non-communist and non-revolutionary. Naturally, every revolution entails enormous sacrifices for the class that produces it" (vol. 32, p. 464). 

One could cite more than a dozen examples of similar statements by many, many current leaders of the international labor movement in the countries of Europe and North America. And in their refutation one could cite no fewer quotations from the works of V. I. Lenin. 

It is quite clear to me that the aforementioned views of the majority of the leaders of the Communist Parties of the West on the questions of unity have nothing in common with the views of V. I. Lenin on this question. In the light of Lenin's statements, it becomes obvious that the modern formulation of the question of the need for the unity of all parties that "consider themselves" parties of the working class as an indispensable condition for a successful peaceful transition to socialism - in fact, is reduced to complete oblivion or only to verbal recognition as communist parties of some Western European states QUINTESSIONS of Marxism-Leninism - DOCTRINES ABOUT THE DICTATORY OF THE PROLETARIAT. 

How else to evaluate the official statements of the leaders of these communist parties about "preliminarily enlisting the majority of the people on the side of the revolution", about the role of violence and coercion in the revolution, about the "new ruling bloc", about the possibility and necessity of two or more parties in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, about structural reforms etc. etc.? 

Such a position cannot be called a communist, revolutionary, Marxist-Leninist position. This is the position that V.I. Lenin called centrist and characterized as follows: 

"The 'Center' swears and swears that they are Marxists, internationalists, that they are for peace, for all sorts of 'pressure' on governments, for all sorts of 'demands' to their government to 'develop the will of the peoples for peace', for all kinds of campaigns in the benefit of peace, etc., etc... The center is for "unity", the center is against a split. 

The crux of the matter is that the "center" is not convinced of the need for a revolution against its governments, does not preach it, does not conduct a selfless revolutionary struggle, puts forward, invents the most vulgar - and arch-"Marxist"-sounding excuses from it. 

"Centre" - people of routine, eaten away by rotten legality, spoiled by the atmosphere of parliamentarism, etc., officials accustomed to warm places and "calm" work" ("Letters on tactics"). 

Theorists and supporters of the Program of the CPSU are very indignant when they hear this quote from V. I. Lenin. Wherever possible and as soon as possible, they refer to the fact that all the principles of the Program of the CPSU on the issues of the international working-class movement, as the Program of the CPSU itself indicates, can be implemented only as a result of "a broad, mass struggle for peace, for democracy, for socialism" . And it seems to many that these concepts - "revolutionary", "peace", "socialism", "struggle" - cover everything. 

But these many are mistaken. They forget or do not understand the most essential circumstance that the very formulation of the question of revolutionary mass struggle, as it is given by the Program of the CPSU, does NOT contain anything concrete, only general appeals and phrases.

V. I. Lenin said: 

“What is the aim of the revolutionary mass struggle?.. It is considered self-evident or directly admitted that this aim is ‘socialism.’ Capitalism (or imperialism) is opposed to socialism. 

But this is just in the highest degree (theoretically) illogical, and practically devoid of content. It is illogical because it is too general, too vague. "Socialism" in general, as a goal, in contrast to capitalism (or imperialism), is now recognized not only by social-chauvinists and Kautskyites, but also by many bourgeois politicians. But NOW it is not about a general opposition of two social systems, but about the SPECIFIC goal of a SPECIFIC "revolutionary mass struggle" - against a SPECIFIC evil, namely against TODAY's high cost, TODAY's military danger ... 

The entire Second International ... opposed socialism in general to capitalism, and JUST on this too general "generalization" it failed. He ignored precisely the specific evil of his era, which F. Engels almost 30 years ago, on January 10, 1887, characterized with the following words: “... In the Social Democratic Party itself ... a certain kind of petty-bourgeois socialism finds its place. It finds expression there in such a form that the basic views of modern socialism and the demand for the transformation of all means of production into public property are recognized as correct, but THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS IS RECOGNIZED POSSIBLE ONLY IN THE REMOTE, PRACTICALLY UNCERTAIN FUTURE, THIS SAME PROBLEM FOR THE PRESENT IS DEFINED ONLY AS SIMPLE DARNING "" ("On the housing issue". 

Further, V. I. Lenin writes: 

“The concrete goal of the “revolutionary mass struggle” can only be SPECIFIC measures of the SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, and NOT “socialism” in general. very specific measures in an official resolution of the party and systematically explain them in the most popular form through daily party propaganda and agitation at meetings, in parliamentary speeches, in initiative proposals - then again you get the same delaying or evasive, through and through sophistical answer that the people - do not yet prepared for this, etc.! 

BUT THE POINT IS EXACTLY IN THAT NOW TO START THIS PREPARATIONS AND CARRY OUT IT steadfastly!" ("The Fundamental Provisions on the Question of War"). 

It is hardly possible to add anything to the words of Engels and Lenin. 

REALLY, FROM A CONSIDERATION OF THE PROGRAM OF THE CPSU (its part devoted to the world revolutionary process) AND THE RELATED PROVISIONS OF SOME WEST COMPARTIES, IT INEVITABLY FOLLOWS THAT FOR THEM THE PRESENT TASK IS DEFINED AS A SIMPLE SOCIAL darn.